Haseeb Ahmad Khan vs The State
This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by Haseeb Ahmad Khan, who was charged in FIR No. 22 of 2004 for offences under the Customs Act, 1969, involving the fraudulent clearance of imported goods without payment of customs duties, resulting in significant financial loss to the state exchequer. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail despite the offences charged not falling within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Lahore High Court held that the petitioner’s prima facie involvement in the fraudulent scheme, characterized by the manipulation of container numbers and the orchestration of illegal clearances, disentitled him to the concession of bail. The court affirmed the principle that the mere fact that an offence does not attract the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, does not automatically entitle an accused to bail, particularly when the accused is implicated in the systematic plundering of the national exchequer.
- Does the fact that an offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, automatically entitle an accused to the grant of bail?
- Can an accused person involved in the systematic plundering of the national exchequer be denied bail even if the charged offences are non-prohibitory?
- Section 14-A, Customs Act 1969
- Section 16, Customs Act 1969
- Section 32-A, Customs Act 1969
- Section 156(1)(9), Customs Act 1969
- Section 178, Customs Act 1969
- Section 497(1), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER M. BILAL KHAN, J.- Haseeb Ahmad Khan son of Naushad Ahmad Khan, petitioner, by filing this petition, seeks post- arrest bail in ease FIR No. 22 of 2004, dated 17.07.2004, registered with Police Station l&P Cell Customs House, Lahore, for offences under Sections 14-A, 16, 32-A, 156(1 )(9), 178 of the Customs Act, 1969.
2. The facts of the case as narrated in the FIR registered at the instance of Farhat Bukhari Deputy Superintendent Customs, are that on receipt of a spy information that M/s. Al-Mehmood Sewing Machine Company Larex Market, Lahore and imported electronic goods and electric appliances from China through container No. SCZU-566376-0 and for their clearance Messrs KSK Enterprises had filed Bill of Entry to Lahore Dry Port, but the same had been released without payment of Customs Duty, a preliminary inquiry was conducted which revealed that two containers bearing Nos. SCZU-566376 and OOLU-5531671 loaded with various sort of articles had been imported and for their release ^Bill of Entry (GDI) Nos. 12184, dated 15.04.2004 and 10765 dated 16.03.2004 had been filed at Lahore Dry Port; the articles imported (under Bill of Entry (GDI) No. 10765, dated 16.03.2004) had been got cleared from .The Lahore Dry Port on payment of taxes, etc., whereas the container in question, loaded with electronic goods/appliances against which custom duty and other charges of Rs. 28,59,253/- were to be paid, had not been got released and intentionally its Bill of Entry had been kept pending and for clearance of the goods one Hafiz obtained the Said bill of entry; meanwhile another container was arranged, its original number was erased and in its place No. SCZU-566326-0 had been written with paint and for its clearance, a clearing agent by the name of Agha Nusrat Jang Durrani, on behalf of Messrs Al-Hamza Enterprises, had filed shipping- Bill No. 0198 dated 10.03.2004, which was later on got cancelled; thereafter on 17.04.2004 the container in question (SCUZ-566376-0) which was parked at Lahore Dry Port had been got released from Lahore Dry Port by loading it on Trawler No. TLB-589, which caused a huge loss to the government exchequer as mentioned hereinabove. Resultantly the instant FIR had been recorded.
3. The petitioner was arrested on 19.02.2007 and is in custody ever since. His plea for post-arrest bail did not find favour with the learned Special Judge Customs, Lahore who dismissed his application, vide order dated 06.04.2007. Hence this petition.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record.
5 It has been observed that shipping bill was arranged and got issued by the petitioner, thereafter container No. 55942-0 was got arranged by hint and allegedly in connivance with the staff its number was scratched and replaced with number of another container viz. 566376-0. The learned Trial Court on 19.02.2007 while refusing per-arrest bail had passed the following order:- "According to the investigation so far conducted, the petitioner seems to be the- active participant in the clearing of imported articles in the name of M/S. Al- Mehmood and the clearing articles were conducted by M/S. K.S.K Enterprises Customs Clearing Agency from whom Haseeb Ahmad Khan petitioner was working."
As such his involvement in the whole transaction is prima- facie apparent. He is* nominated in the first challan which was prepared on 29.05.2006. During investigation the prosecution had collected sufficient material qua the petitioner, which incriminates him directly in the commission of offence, which had resulted into heavy loss to Government Exchequer. He is the person, who according to the prosecution had demanded Rs. 22 lac for clearance of the container, Although the offences with which the petitioner has been charged do not attract the prohibitory clause of Section 497(1), Cr.P.C, yet in view of the circumstances of the case and the ruthless manner in which the state exchequer has been ravaged, he could not claim bail as of right, It is now well-settled that the mere fact that the offence(s) does not attract the prohibitory clause of Section 497(1), Cr.P.C, is not sufficient by itself to release an accused person on bail. The concession of bail cannot be granted to a swindler or plunderer of the national exchequer for the simple reason that the offences do not attract the prohibitory clause. I find no merit in this petition, which is. Hereby dismissed.