SH. MUHAMMAD TASLEEM vs STATE
This criminal petition for leave to appeal arises from an order of the Lahore High Court dismissing the petitioner's application for post-arrest bail in a case involving the recovery of a large quantity of hashish from a container exported under the licence of the petitioner's clearing agency. The core legal question concerns whether the petitioner was entitled to post-arrest bail given the delay in the FIR, the absence of his name in the initial report, and his inclusion in column No. 2 of the challan. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner, as the proprietor of the clearing agency acting in a dual capacity as exporter and clearing agent, was prima facie responsible for the contraband found in the consignment, especially considering the gravity of the offence carrying a punishment of death. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition, ruling that no case for grant of bail or leave to appeal was made out.
- Whether the proprietor of a clearing agency can be granted post-arrest bail when hashish is recovered from a consignment exported under his agency's licence?
- Does the inclusion of an accused's name in column No. 2 of the challan automatically entitle them to post-arrest bail in narcotics cases?
- Is bail to be refused when the alleged offences under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 are punishable with death?
- Section 6, Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997
- Section 7, Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997
- Section 8, Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997
- Section 9(c), Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997
- Section 14, Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997
- Section 15, Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997
- Section 16, Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997
Hamid Ali Mirza, J.--This criminal petition for leave to appeal is directed against judgment dated 24.12.2005 in Criminal Misc. No, 8095-B of 2005 (Sh. Muhammad Tasleem vs. The State), whereby the said criminal misc. application was dismissed thereby bail to the petitioner was declined by the learned Single Judge of the Lahore. High Court, hence this petition.
2. Brief facts of the case as stated in the FIR are that Director General Intelligence, Customs & Excise, Islamabad, through a written letter dated 23.7.2005 informed the Customs Department that Container 320945-2 which was received in Saudi Arabia containing marble tiles and electric wire rolls when checked on 9.4.2005 Hashish weighing 1030.309 Kilogram was found therein and the same was exported under Licence No, 8/2004 of petitioners agency. In view of the said information received, FIR No, 50/2005, dated 24.8.2005 was registered at Railway Police, Mughalpura, Lahore for offences under Sections 6, 7, 8, 9 (c), 14, 15, 16 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 and petitioner was arrested. The petitioner applied for his bail after arrest before the Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore who declined to grant him bail vide order dated 27.10.2005. The petitioner thereafter preferred Criminal Misc. Application No, 8095-B of 2005 before the Lahore High Court, Lahore, which application was also dismissed vide impugned order.
3. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned order and the record.
4. The only contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that there is delay in lodging the FIR and the name of the petitioner is not mentioned in it nor any role of loading or buying of alleged electric wires containing Hashish has been attributed to the petitioner. He further submitted that there is no material against the petitioner implicating him in the commission of crime. He has referred to para-10 of the Challan contending that even the petitioner was not knowing about the export of alleged Hashish through the Cargo cleared by the Clearing Agency of the petitioner.
5. We do not find any merit and substance in the said contentions.
6. Admittedly name of the petitioner is mentioned in Column No, 2 of the challan which itself would show that the Investigating Agency after carrying out investigation in the matter placed the name of the petitioner in Column No, 2 of the challan. Admittedly he is the proprietor/owner of the Clearing Agency "M/s. Crystal Clear" which is run by him would be prima facie responsible of Hashish having been found in the consignment keeping in view of fact that he has acted in dual capacity as exporter as well as clearing agent. The case has not proceeded so far, as such relevant material viz. chemical examiner's report, samples which the prosecution has to produce would be collected from Saudi Arabia as stated in Challan. In the circumstances, it cannot be said that the petitioner has made out a case for grant of bail in the matter for future enquiry, hence no case for grant of bail is made out considering also that the alleged offences being punishable to death.
Resultantly we find no case for grant of leave to appeal is made out, which is declined, and the petition is dismissed.