MUHAMMAD ABDULLAH vs THE STATE and another
The petitioner, Muhammad Abdullah, sought post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No. 1 of 2007 registered under sections 32, 32-A, 14, 14-A, and 156(1) of the Customs Act, 1969 at Police Station Investigation and Prosecution Branch, Collectorate of Customs, Multan, on allegations of furnishing incorrect examination reports causing revenue loss to the national exchequer. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to post-arrest bail on grounds of delay in the trial and the rule of consistency given that co-accused had already been granted bail. The Lahore High Court held that since the petitioner had been incarcerated for nearly one and three-quarter years without the trial even commencing through the framing of a charge, and considering that co-accused had already been admitted to bail, further incarceration served no useful purpose. The court laid down the principle that prolonged pre-trial detention without progress in the trial, coupled with the rule of consistency regarding co-accused who have been granted bail, constitutes sufficient grounds for admitting an accused to post-arrest bail.
- Is an accused entitled to post-arrest bail when the trial has not progressed and charges have not been framed after a significant period of detention?
- Does the grant of bail to co-accused persons entitle another accused facing similar allegations to be released on bail under the rule of consistency?
- Can prolonged incarceration without trial be considered a ground for granting bail in customs offence cases?
- Section 32, Customs Act, 1969
- Section 32-A, Customs Act, 1969
- Section 14, Customs Act, 1969
- Section 14-A, Customs Act, 1969
- Section 156(1), Customs Act, 1969
ORDER
' MUHAMMAD KHALID ALVI, J.--- Muhammad Abdullah petitioner seeks bail after arrest in case F.I.R.
No,1 of 2007 dated 13-3-Z007 for offences under sections 32, 32-A, 14, 14-A, 156(1) of Customs Act, 1969 registered at Police Station Investigation and Prosecution Branch, Collectorate of Customs, Multan.
2. Precise allegation against the petitioner, according to F.I.R. And investigation conducted by the Investigating Officer is that during period from 13-6-2006 to 20-11-2006 petitioner had been working as Examining Officer at Air Freight Unit, Multan. During the course of audit of the period between January, 2005 to November, 2006 it transpired that petitioner had been furnishing reports of examination which were incorrect and were mala fide in connivance with the importers and the Clearing Agents, as a result thereof huge amount of revenue was evaded and loss to the national exchequer was caused.
3. It is submitted that petitioner is behind the bars since 7-6-2007; that position of the trial is that so far charge has not been framed; that principal accused Sheikh Fayyaz Hussain has already been allowed bail by this Court vide order, dated 24-2-2009; that other two co-accused namely Manzoor and Anees-ur-Rehman have also been allowed bail by the learned Custom Judge on 28- 3-2009 and that case of the petitioner is almost identical to that of other co-accused.
4. On the other hand, learned Deputy Attorney-General has opposed this bail application.
5. I have considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties.
6. Petitioner is behind the bars for the last about 1-3/4 years and trial has not progressed, even charge has not been framed. All co-accused, already been allowed bail either by this Court or by the learned trial Court. No useful purpose can be served to keep the petitioner behind the bars from unlimited period, when particularly trial is not progressing. In this view of the matter, this application is allowed. Petitioner is accordingly admitted to bail submit to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs,10,00,000 (Rupees one million only) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.