This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by the Director FBR, Intelligence and Investigation Directorate, Lahore, challenging the Lahore High Court order dated 21-5-2009, which declined to cancel the post-arrest bail previously granted to respondent Akhtar Zaman. The respondent was accused of misappropriating Rs. 46,62,595 through bogus refund claims and fake invoices under the Sales Tax Act, 1990. The core legal question concerned whether the delay in filing the petition should be condoned and whether grounds existed for the cancellation of bail. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the petition was barred by 29 days, the reasons for condonation of delay were inadequate, the prosecution failed to conclude the trial over two years and four months, and there was no allegation of misuse of bail by the respondent, who had already undergone approximately 18 months of incarceration for an offense carrying a maximum punishment of five years. Consequently, the petitions were dismissed as time-barred.
MAHMOOD AKHTAR SHAHID SIDDIQUI, J.---Leave to appeal has been sought against the order dated 21-5-2009 passed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore declining to withdraw the concession of bail allowed to respondent Akhtar Zaman by the same Court on 19-1-2009.
2. The respondent is alleged to have misappropriated a huge amount of Rs, 46,62,595 by submitting bogus refund claims on the basis of fake invoices. A case under section 33(1)(5)(12)(13)
(18) of the Sales Tax Act, 1990 was registered with Directorate of Intelligence and Investigation, FBR Range Office, Gujranwala against the respondent on 20-7-2007. He was immediately arrested and was admitted to bail on 19-1-2009 after a period of about 18 months.
3. The complainant moved an application for the cancellation of bail which was also dismissed by the learned High Court vide impugned order dated 21-5-2009. The instant petitions were filed with a delay of 29 days. The prosecution during the last two years and four months made no effort to get the trial concluded. There is also no allegation against the respondent Akhtar Zaman that he misused the concession of bail in any manners the maximum punishment for the offence with Which he has been charged is 5 years. He has already suffered incarceration for about 18 months.
These petitions are otherwise barred by 29 days. The reasons given in the application for condonation of delay are not valid.
4. In view of the above, we do not consider it just and proper to condone the delay. Therefore, these petitions are dismissed being barred by time.