IMTIAZ ALI TAJ Versus STATE
ORDER
1. In all these 5 bail applications facts and grounds are similar and are, therefore, being disposed of by this single order. Applicant is accused in Crimes Nos.10(19)DV-INV-MISC/91/A&B, registered on 24-2-1992 for offence under section 32 punishable under section 156(1)(14)(82) of the Customs Act, 1969. The contents of both the reports are similar but as they pertains to different export shipping bills, they were separately registered. The case was registered on 24-2-1992 and applicant was arrested on 25-2-1992 although in the challan arrest is shown on 26-2-1992. Application filed a bail application before the trial Court which was dismissed on 12-3-1992 and his bail application being Special Criminal Bail No. 7 of 1992 filed before this Court was also dismissed on 13-4-1992 by my learned brother Qaiser Ahmed Hamidi, J. Bail application was repeated by the applicant before the trial Court which was also dismissed by order, dated 17-9-1992. Applicant again moved bail application before this Court but it was withdrawn on 17-11-1992 as 5 challans were submitted against the applicant and co accused and the applicant wanted to file 5 bail applications before the trial Court. Accordingly, after withdrawal of his bail application on 17-11-1992, 5 bail applications were filed on his behalf before the trial Court, which were dismissed on 6-12-1992 and in this background the present bail applications have been filed.
2. In brief the facts of the case are that credible was received by one Mr. Muhammad Saleem, Principal Appraiser, Directorate of Inspection (Customs, Central Excise and Sales Tax), Karachi that 9 consignments comprising 499 bales of Polyester Jacquard Fabrics and a wooden case containing Glass Marbles had been fraudulently exported to Dubai from Gwadar Port with intent to obtain customs duty drawback and import licence fee refund totalling to Rs.26,119,321, The shipping bills were prepared, filed and processed by co-accused Abdul Majeed, who was acting as the clearing and forwarding shipping agent. The applicant Imtiaz Ali Taj was the Chief Executive of Messrs. Charly Enterprises for and on behalf of which firm the amount of duty drawback and import licence fee refund was claimed. The facts are also given in details in order, dated 13-4-1992 by this Court, whereby bail application of the applicant was rejected and the same need not be repeated.
3. The contention of the learned Advocate for the applicant in all those bail applications is that no specific role in the F.I.R. is assigned to the applicant, that even on 10-11-1992 when final challan was submitted there was no evidence against the applicant, that the applicant only collected cheques for and on behalf of Messrs Charly Enterprises and Messrs Concord Export House, that co-accused Khalid Aziz, Inspector Customs, Mumtaz Ali Changezi Assistant Collector Customs, Superintendent Customs All Ahmed Baloch, Deputy and Shahid Hussain, Superintendent, Customs and some other accused in the same case have been granted bail and on the basis of rule of consistency applicant is also entitled to bail. It is lastly contended that the offence with which the applicant is charged is punishable to imprisonment for 3 years and would not attract the prohibitory clause of section 497 of Cr.P.C.
4. Mr. Farrukh Zia Shaikh, Advocate appearing for the (State, who is assisted by Investigating Officer, has opposed the grant of bail and has contended that the applicant was the Chief Executive of Messrs Charly Enterprises and Messrs Concord Export House and had received cheques in his that capacity for the amount involved in this case and his case is not at par with the case of such accused as are granted bail either by this Court or by the trial Court.
5. I have heard the learned Advocate at length and seen all the orders on the bail applications of the present applicant pied either by this Court or by the trial Court. I have also perused the orders of bail in the case of Khalid Aziz, Mumtaz Ali Changezi and Abdul Majeed Jaskani. In these cases it was not proved that anyone of said accused were the beneficiaries of the whole or any part of the amount paid by way of duty drawback or import licence fee refund. In the case of applicant Imtiaz M Taj, he was not only acting as the. Chief Executive of the said firms but had also received the cheques for various amounts. Letter, dated 15-1-1992 written by the applicant to Assistant Director, Directorate of Inspection (Customs, Central Excise and Sales Tax) forms part of the investigation file in which he mentioned that entire business in Quetta Branch including an export under reference, have been exclusively handled by him. He has also given his N.I.C. number. In the circumstances, the applicant cannot claim as having no association with the firms which defrauded Government of Pakistan to the tune of crores of rupees. The applicant is directly involved in the said fraudulent act and his case is not identical with the case of accused who are granted bail. I am benefited by the order passed by my A learned brother Qaiser Ahmed Hamidi, J. in Special Criminal Bail No.7 of 1992 moved by the applicant. Nothing more is brought on record after the dismissal of said bail application and now since the challan has been submitted and the trial is likely to commence in the near future, there is no scope for grant of bail to the applicant and all the 5 applications for bail are accordingly dismissed.
6. N.H.Q./I-239/K Bail refused.