The State thr. Auditor Intelligence and Investigation (IR) vs Naeem Siddique
This petition was filed by the State seeking the cancellation of post-arrest bail granted to the respondent by the Islamabad High Court in connection with an FIR registered under Sections 37-A and 37-B of the Sales Tax Act, 1990. The core legal questions involved whether the petition was barred by time and whether the grounds urged warranted the cancellation of bail where the offences fell outside the prohibitory clause of the governing law. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the petition was time-barred by forty days, the offences fell outside the prohibitory clause where refusal of bail is an exception, and tentative observations by the High Court did not prejudice the trial. The key principle laid down is that considerations for bail cancellation differ from those for granting bail, and a mere difference of opinion regarding the prosecution material is insufficient to cancel bail once granted.
- Whether bail once granted can be cancelled when the offences fall outside the prohibitory clause?
- Are tentative observations made by the High Court while granting bail binding on the trial court?
- Does a mere difference of opinion on prosecution material constitute a sufficient ground for the cancellation of bail?
- Section 37-A, Sales Tax Act 1990
- Section 37-B, Sales Tax Act 1990
ORDER
UMAR ATA BANDIAL, J. -- This petition has been filed by the State for the cancellation of bail after arrest allowed to respondent by the Islamabad High Court vide its order dated 4.11.2015. The respondent is accused in case F.I.R. No, 8, dated 10.9.2015 for offences under Sections 37-A and 37-B of Sales Tax Act, 1990, registered by Director-General, Intelligence and Investigation Inland Revenue, Islamabad.
2. This petition is time-barred by 40 days. It has also been noted by us that punishment for offences mentioned in F.I.R. is three years and five years, respectively which falls outside the prohibitory clause. In such-like cases the refusal of bail is an exception. The learned counsel has emphasized that allegations against the respondent are serious in nature as he has caused colossal loss to public excheruer. He places reliance on Imtiaz Ahmed and another v. The State (PLD 1997 SC 545). Learned counsel has also raised objections to certain observations made in the impugned judgment by the learned High Court with respect to the merit of the case.
3. It goes without saying that the observations made in the impugned order by the learned High Court while granting bail to the petitioner are tentative in nature and would not affect the trial to be concluded by a learned Trial Court. The considerations governing the cancellation of bail are different from the ones for granting such relief. The impugned bail granting order has considered the prosecution material to arrive at its conclusion. Merely another opinion in the matter is not a ground for cancellation of bail.
4. For the foregoing discussion, we are not inclined to grant the relief as prayed for in this petition, as such the same is dismissed and leave is refused.