AKHTAR ZAMAN KHAN vs THE STATE
This post-arrest bail application was filed by the petitioner accused in FIR No. 4/2007 under various provisions of the Sales Tax Act, 1990. The core legal question before the court was whether post-arrest bail should be granted to an accused who has spent substantial time as an under-trial prisoner for offences that do not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, despite allegations of causing substantial financial loss to the public exchequer. The Lahore High Court allowed the application and granted post-arrest bail subject to furnishing bail bonds. The Court held that for offences outside the prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.P.C., the grant of bail is the rule and refusal is an exception. The Court emphasized that an accused cannot be denied bail solely on the ground of causing loss to the public exchequer, particularly when the accused has already served nearly 18 months in custody out of a maximum sentence of 5 years and had already been extended bail in a similar co-related case.
- Is the grant of bail a rule and refusal an exception in cases where offences do not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.P.C.?
- Can an accused be denied post-arrest bail solely on the ground of causing a huge loss to the public exchequer?
- Does spending a substantial period as an under-trial prisoner entitle an accused to post-arrest bail when the charged offences fall non-prohibitory under Section 497 Cr.P.C.?
- Section 3, Sales Tax Act 1990
- Section 6, Sales Tax Act 1990
- Section 7, Sales Tax Act 1990
- Section 8, Sales Tax Act 1990
- Section 8-A, Sales Tax Act 1990
- Section 14, Sales Tax Act 1990
- Section 22, Sales Tax Act 1990
- Section 23, Sales Tax Act 1990
- Section 26, Sales Tax Act 1990
- Section 33(1), Sales Tax Act 1990
- Section 33(5), Sales Tax Act 1990
- Section 33(12), Sales Tax Act 1990
- Section 33(13), Sales Tax Act 1990
- Section 33(18), Sales Tax Act 1990
- Section 34, Sales Tax Act 1990
- Section 36, Sales Tax Act 1990
- Section 36(i), Sales Tax Act 1990
- Section 38, Sales Tax Act 1990
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
'HASNAT AHMAD KHAN, J.---Through this application Akhtar Zaman Khan, an accused of case F.I.R.
No,4/2007 dated 17-7-2007, registered with Investigation and Prosecution Branch, Directorate General Intelligence and Investigation (Customs and Excise), Gujranwala, in respect of offences under sections 3, 6, 7, 8, 8-A, 14, 22, 23, 26, 34, 36, 36(i), 38 and 33(1)(5)(12)(13)(18) of the Sales Tax Act, 1990, seeks post-arrest bail.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner has been suffering pre-trial punishment since 19-7-2007; that none of the offences allegedly committed by the petitioners falls within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. And that in a similar ease the petitioner has already been allowed bail.
3. Conversely, learned Legal Advisors for Sales Tax Department, have opposed the bail application strenuously, on the 'ground that the petitioner is guilty of causing huge loss to the public exchequer, therefore, he is not entitled to the concession of post-arrest bail, despite the fact that the offences allegedly committed by him do not fall within the prohibitory clause.
4. After hearing the respective learned counsel for the parties and going through the relevant record appended with this petition, I have gathered that none of the offences allegedly committed by the petitioner falls within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. In such-like cases, granted of bail is a rule while refusal thereof is an exception to the said rule. Out of the maximum sentence of 5 years of punishment provided for the offences punishable under sections 33(12) and 33(13) of Sales Tax Act, 1990, the petitioner has already suffered around 18 months as under trial prisoner.
Therefore, the petitioner cannot be denied bail only on the ground that he has caused huge loss to the public exchequer. Besides, the A petitioner has already been granted bail in case F.I.R. F.I.R.
No,6/2007, dated 19-7-2007, registered with same police station in respect of the same offences.
Learned Legal Advisors for the Sales Tax Department have failed to point out any distinctive feature disentitling the petitioner from getting the same relief.
5. Consequently, while relying on the case of Tariq Bashir and 5 others v. The State PLD 1995 SC 34, I am inclined to grant the concession of post-arrest bail to the petitioner but, of course, subject to his furnishing bail bonds in a sum of Rs,5,00,000 rupees five hundred thousand with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court.
Cited by 5 cases
- ALI SHAN vs DIRECTORATE OF INTELLIGENCE AND INVESTIGATION (IRS) 2016 PTD 2648
- ALI SHAN Versus DIRECTORATE OF INTELLIGENCE AND INVESTIGATION (IRS) KARACHI 2017 PCrLJN 189
- FAISAL ELAHI and another vs THE STATE 2011 PTD 2714
- Faisal Elahi And Another vs The State PTCL 2012 CL. 236
- FAISAL ELLAHI and another vs THE STATE 2011 P Cr. L J 1983