HAROON MUNIR vs STATE and another
This matter concerns three petitions for pre-arrest bail filed by Haroon Munir, Mushtaq Ahmad, and Naseer Ahmad in connection with FIR No. 11/16, registered at Police Station I&P Branch, RTO, Faisalabad, for alleged offences under the Sales Tax Act, 1990. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to confirmation of pre-arrest bail given that the underlying order passed by the Commissioner Inland Revenue, which formed the basis of the criminal case, had been set aside by the Appellate Tribunal, Inland Revenue. The court observed that the Department (FBR) had not challenged the Appellate Tribunal's order, rendering the prosecution's case currently unsustainable. Furthermore, the petitioners were noted to be previous non-convicts who had fully cooperated with the investigation. Consequently, the court confirmed the pre-arrest bail, holding that the existence of the Appellate Tribunal's order, which nullified the basis of the criminal proceedings, created a strong case for mala fide implication. The court granted liberty to the Department to seek cancellation of bail should the Appellate Tribunal's order be subsequently overturned by a higher forum.
- Whether pre-arrest bail can be confirmed when the underlying administrative order forming the basis of the FIR has been set aside by an appellate authority?
- Does the failure of the prosecution to challenge an appellate order that nullifies the basis of a criminal case entitle the accused to bail?
- Can the prosecution seek cancellation of bail if the appellate order supporting the accused's position is subsequently set aside?
- Section 498, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 3, Sales Tax Act 1990
- Section 6, Sales Tax Act 1990
- Section 7, 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 73, Sales Tax Act 1990
- Rule 3, Sales Tax Rules 2006
- Rule 5, Sales Tax Rules 2006
- Section 33(5), Sales Tax Act 1990
- Section 33(7), Sales Tax Act 1990
- Section 33(8), Sales Tax Act 1990
- Section 33(11-C), Sales Tax Act 1990
- Section 33(13), Sales Tax Act 1990
- Section 2(37), Sales Tax Act 1990
ORDER
Through this single order, I propose to decide the instant, petition alongwith Criminal Miscellaneous No,1 5697-B of 2016 and Criminal Miscellaneous No, 15698-B of 2016 as in all these petitions, Haroon Munir, Mushtaq Ahmad and Naseer Ahmad petitioners have sought pre-arrest bail under Section 498, Cr.P.C. in case FIR No, 11/16, dated 28.07.2016 registered at Police Station I&P Branch, Unit-H, RTO, Faisalabad in respect of offences under Sections 3, 6, 7, 14, 22, 23, 26 & 73 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990 read with Rules 3 & 5 of Sales Tax Rules 2006, Punishable under Sections 33(5), 33(7), .33(8), 33(11- C) and 33(13) of the Sales Tax Act, 1990 read with Section 2(37) ibid.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of this case with their able assistance. These are petitions for bail before arrest, wherein deeper appreciation is not permissible and only tentative assessment is required. At the outset, it has been noticed by this Court that the order dated 28.04.2016, passed by the Commissioner Inland Revenue, Faisalabad, on the basis of which case in hand was registered against the petitioners and their co-accused has been set aside by the Appellate Tribunal, Inland Revenue Lahore vide order dated 22.11.2016.
Confronted with the situation, learned counsel representing Department (FBR) conceded that the order dated 22.11.2016 has not so far been assailed before the appropriate forum, therefore, until the order dated 22.11.2016 is in field, the case of the prosecution against the petitioners has no legs to stand on. It is also an admitted fact that the petitioners are previous non-convict and never involved in any other case. They have already joined the investigation which is complete and unless the order dated 22.11.2016 remains in field, no useful purpose would be served by sending the petitioners behind the bars.
3. For what has been discussed above particularly in view of the order dated 22.11.2016 as stated above, false implication of the petitioners with mala fide intention of the complainant cannot be ruled out of consideration, hence, these petitions are allowed and ad interim pre-arrest bail already granted to the petitioners is hereby confirmed for the time being subject to furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs, 100,000/- (Rupees one hundred thousand only) each with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court. It is, however, clarified that the Department is at liberty to assail the order dated 22.11.2016, if so desire, and in case the order dated 22.11.2016 is set aside the Department shall be at liberty to seek cancellation of pre-arrest bail granted to the petitioners through this order.