GHULAM JILLANI vs The STATE and another
This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by the petitioner, Ghulam Jillani, following the cancellation of his earlier bail in a case registered under the Customs Act, 1969. The petitioner's bail had been cancelled by the trial court due to his failure to appear on a single date, January 15, 2013. The core legal question before the High Court was whether the petitioner should be granted bail again, considering that his previous absence was allegedly unintentional and caused by public transport disruptions during a political long march. The High Court, noting that the Special Prosecutor for Customs did not seriously oppose the bail request, held that the petitioner was entitled to relief. The court granted the post-arrest bail, emphasizing that the petitioner had previously been on bail and that his absence was limited to a single occasion. The key principle laid down is that where a bail cancellation stems from a single instance of non-appearance that is not clearly malicious or intentional, and where the prosecution does not strongly oppose the request, the court may exercise its discretion to restore bail subject to appropriate conditions.
- Can a court grant post-arrest bail to an accused whose previous bail was cancelled due to a single instance of non-appearance?
- Does the lack of serious opposition by the prosecution influence the court's decision to grant bail after a previous cancellation?
- Section 2(s), Customs Act 1969
- Section 15, Customs Act 1969
- Section 16, Customs Act 1969
- Section 18, Customs Act 1969
- Section 156(1), Customs Act 1969
- Section 89, Customs Act 1969
ORDER
' MUHAMMAD ANWAARUL HAQ, J.---Petitioner Ghulam Jillani seeks post arrest bail in a case F.I.R.
No,4 dated 9-9-2012 under sections 2(s), 15, 16, 18, 156(1) & 89 Customs Act, 1969 registered at Police Station Investigation and Prosecution Branch, Model Custom Collectorate, Faisalabad.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner was earlier granted bail in this case and he was appearing before the learned trial Court but due to his absence on only one date i,e, 15-1-2013 his bail was cancelled. Further contends that non-appearance of the petitioner was not at all intentional rather due to long march of Dr. Tahir-ul-Qadri, the public transport was not available, therefore, he could not appear before the learned trial Court and that the petitioner shall regularly appear before the learned trial Court in future if he is granted bail.
3. Learned Special Prosecutor for Customs does not seriously oppose the request of bail of the petitioner.
4. Heard. Record perused.
5. Without commenting upon the reasons for non-appearance of the petitioner before the learned trial Court on the date fixed, only keeping in view the fact that earlier he was on bail and his absence was only for one date, he is granted bail subject to his furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs,50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.