MUHAMMAD JAVED Versus State
The petitioner, a clerk in a clearing agency, sought post-arrest bail in a case arising from FIR No. 16 of 2005 registered under the Customs Act at Police Station Nabha Road, Lahore. The petitioner argued that he was merely an employee who signed the shipping bill, was not specifically named as an accused in the initial FIR, and had no recoveries made from him during the investigation, while a co-accused had already been granted bail. The State vehemently opposed the bail application. Upon perusing the record, the Lahore High Court noted that the trial had already commenced, charges had been framed, and prosecution evidence was being recorded. The Court held that since the trial was underway, it was inappropriate to evaluate the factual aspects of the case to avoid prejudicing either party. Consequently, the Court refused post-arrest bail and disposed of the petition with a direction to the trial court to accelerate the proceedings and conclude the trial within four months.
- Whether post-arrest bail should be granted when the trial has already commenced and prosecution evidence is being recorded?
- Does signing a shipping bill as a clerk in a clearing agency entitle an accused to bail without examining the merits during an ongoing trial?
- Section 178, Customs Act
- Section 157, Customs Act
- Section 156, Customs Act
- Section 32, Customs Act
- Section 16, Customs Act
- Section 2, Customs Act
ORDER
1. MIAN MUHAMMAD NAJAM-UZ-ZAMAN, J.--- Muhammad Javed petitioner seeks post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.16 of 2005, dated 7-7-2005 for the offences under sections 178, 157(d)y (c), (h), (8), (1), 156, 32(1), 16 and 2(5) of the Customs Act, registered at Police Station Nabha Road, Lahore, on the grounds that petitioner a clerk in a Clearing Agency owned by Ikhlaque Ahmed Khan co-accused who had already been admitted to bail by the trial Court, there is no role attributed to the petitioner except that he had signed the shipping bill and thus petitioner has got nothing to do with the items which were exported, bare perusal of the F.I.R. reveals that petitioner has not been arraigned as accused in this case and during the investigation nothing was recovered from the petitioner. In support of his arguments, learned counsel has relied upon case reported as 1996 PCr.LJ 347. Conversely counsel for the Customs Department vehemently oppose the bail application.
2. Heard. File perused.
2. Report submitted by the trial Court, dated 21-1-2006 reveals that after framing the charge the evidence of the prosecution witnesses is being recorded and the case in hand is likely to be concluded within six months.
3. Since the trial in this case has already commenced, it is not appropriate to dilate upon the factual aspect of the case lest it may prejudice the case of either party. This petition stands disposed of with the direction to the trial Court to accelerate the proceedings and conclude the same within four months instead of six months as reported.
4. H.B.T./M-369/L Bail refused.