The State through Auditor Intelligence and Investigation (IR) vs Naeem
This petition was filed by the State seeking the cancellation of post-arrest bail granted to the respondent by the Islamabad High Court. The respondent was accused of offences under the Sales Tax Act, 1990, involving allegations of causing a colossal loss to the public exchequer. The Supreme Court of Pakistan observed that the petition was time-barred by 40 days and that the punishments for the alleged offences (three and five years, respectively) fell outside the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, where the refusal of bail is an exception. The Court held that the considerations for the cancellation of bail are distinct from those for granting bail, and a mere difference of opinion on the prosecution material does not constitute a valid ground for cancellation. Clarifying that any observations made by the High Court in the bail order were tentative and would not affect the trial, the Court dismissed the petition and refused leave.
- Whether a difference of opinion regarding prosecution material is a sufficient ground for the cancellation of bail?
- Are observations made by a High Court while granting bail binding on the trial court during the main trial?
- Does an offence carrying a maximum punishment of three to five years fall within the prohibitory clause of the bail provisions?
- 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 04.11.2015. The respondent is accused in case F.I.R. No, 8, dated 10.09.2015 for offences under Sections 37-A & 37-B of Sales Tax Act, 1990, registered by Director-General Intelligence & Investigation Inland Revenue, Islamabad.
2. The 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 exchequer. He places reliance on lmtiaz 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 the 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 revised.