GHAZI SHAH ETC. vs The STATE
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the order of the High Court rejecting the petitioners' bail application in a case involving the alleged smuggling of gold from Dubai. The core legal question concerns the rule of consistency in bail matters, specifically whether accused persons alleged to be mere carriers of smuggled goods are entitled to bail on the same footing as a co-accused or where the primary beneficiary is not apprehended. The Supreme Court held that the petitioners were entitled to the grant of bail based on the principle established in precedent where paid servants or carriers were released on bail while the principal offender remained untried or differently situated. The key principle laid down is that parity in treatment regarding bail should be extended to co-accused who stand on a similar footing, such as carriers compared to primary beneficiaries or principal accused who have already been granted relief.
- Are carriers of smuggled goods entitled to bail on the ground of consistency when the main accused or beneficiary is not in custody?
- Whether petitioners alleged to be paid servants are at par with the principal accused in smuggling cases for the purpose of bail?
ORDER
ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN. J.-The petitioners seek leave to appeal against the order of the Labour; High Court, dated 16-2-1983, rejecting their bail application.
2. They are accused alongwith some others, of smuggling gold from Dubai and were arrested outside Islamabad Airport. Their bail application was rejected by the High Court. Learned counsel urged before us that although according to the prosecution itself, Haji Muhammad Afzal is the main accused and the petitioners were merely `carriers' for him, yet the former has been granted bail by the High Court, while the application of the petitioners was rejected. The learned counsel referred to Noorul and others v. The State (1976SCMR190), where in a similar case, the carriers were released on bail, with the following observations.
"At the same time be pointed out that the real beneficiary of the smuggled goods viz., the owner of the launch has disappeared while the petitioners were only his paid servants. This indicated that the offences committed by the petitioners was not at par with the offence committed by Noor Muhammad who has to be brought to trial."
3. We issued notice to the State and adjourned the case. After hearing the learned State counsel, we feel that on the facts of the prosecution case as contained in the show-cause notice issued to the accused/petitioners by the Collector, Custom (which is available at pages 17 to 21 of the paper, book), they are entitled to grant of bail on the basis of the view taken in Noorul and others v. The State.
4. They are, therefore, granted bail in the sum of Rs. 1,00,(100 each with two sorties in the alike amount, each to the satisfaction of Special Judge Custom, Lahore.
Cited by 8 cases
- MAJEED AHMED vs THE STATE 1996 MLD 1650
- MUHAMMAD TANWEER vs THE STATE 1993 P Cr. L J 1643
- RIFAQAT ALI vs THE STATE 1991 MLD 1673
- Rae ALEEM KHAN vs THE STATE 1989 MLD 861
- NABI BUX vs THE STATE- 1986 P Cr. L J 202
- JAMSHED IQBAL Alias Billo vs THE STATE- 1986 P Cr. L J 2309
- Syed NOOR HUSSAIN vs THE STATE 1985 P Cr. L J 2563
- Haji IBRAHIM and 4 others vs THE STATE 1985 P Cr. L J 2560