AKHTAR ZAMAN KHAN vs THE STATE and another
The petitioner sought leave to appeal against the order of the Lahore High Court dismissing his application for post-arrest bail in a case registered under the Customs Act, 1969. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to post-arrest bail on the grounds of statutory consistency with co-accused who had been granted bail and his own bail status in other cases. The Supreme Court held that the High Court rightly found sufficient material connecting the petitioner to the alleged offense, making discretionary relief inappropriate, especially when the trial was already underway and directed to be concluded expeditiously. The Court affirmed that where tentative assessment reveals reasonable grounds connecting the accused to the crime, bail may be withheld despite the grant of bail to co-accused.
- Whether post-arrest bail can be refused when there is sufficient material connecting the accused to the offense under the Customs Act, 1969?
- Does the grant of bail to co-accused automatically entitle another accused to the same concession?
- Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with a High Court's refusal of bail when the trial is near conclusion?
- Section 156(1)(14)(14-A)(77), Customs Act 1969
ORDER
' MIAN HAMID FAROOQ, J.---Petitioner seeks leave to appeal against order dated 25-5-2009, whereby the learned Lahore High Court at Lahore dismissed his application (Criminal Miscellaneous No, 5547-B of 2008) seeking post arrest bail, in a case registered vide F.I.R. No,3/07 dated 3-7-2007 under section 156(1)(14)(14-A)(77) of the Customs Act, 1969 at Police Station Investigation and Prosecution Branch, Directorate General Intelligence and Investigation (Customs and Excise), Lahore and directed the learned trial Court to conclude trial of the case within a period of six months.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that although the petitioner was involved in different cases, yet he had already been granted bail in the said cases and that all the co-accused .Of the petitioner were granted the concession of bail, therefore, the petitioner was also entitled to same treatment.
3. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and examined the available record. Findings of the learned High Court recorded in para 5 of the impugned order were sufficient to decline discretionary relief of bail to the petitioner. The learned High Court, while referring to different aspects of the case, came to the tentative view that there was sufficient material available on record to connect the petitioner with the commission of offence and we do subscribe to the said findings. Furthermore, according to the learned counsel, challan has been submitted and trial of the case is underway. Learned High Court had already directed, and rightly so, the learned trial Court to conclude the trial of the case within a period of six months. In view whereof, we are not inclined to take a contrary view than the one adopted by the learned High Court. The impugned order does not suffer from any legal infirmity, which is hereby maintained.
4. In view of the above, the present petition lacking in merits stands dismissed and leave to appeal is refused.