AMNA NAZ Versus State
This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by a female petitioner accused of smuggling 26 foreign-made iPhones through the green channel at Allama Iqbal International Airport, Lahore, without valid import documentation. The core legal question was whether the lower courts erred in denying bail based primarily on the severity of the sentence prescribed for the alleged offences under the Customs Act, 1969, without adequately considering the petitioner's status as a woman under the first proviso to section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned order, and granted bail. The Court held that the lower courts failed to properly exercise their discretion by focusing solely on the prohibitory clause rather than the petitioner's gender, lack of criminal history, and the fact that custodial interrogation was no longer required. The key principle laid down is that while an offence may fall within the prohibitory clause, courts must independently evaluate bail applications for women by considering individual circumstances, such as background and the necessity of continued detention, rather than relying exclusively on the prescribed sentence.
- Does the mere fact that an offence falls within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 automatically disentitle a female accused to bail?
- Should a court consider the gender of an accused when evaluating a bail application under the first proviso to section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Is the completion of custodial interrogation a relevant factor in determining whether to grant post-arrest bail?
- Section 2(s), Customs Act 1969
- Section 16, Customs Act 1969
- Section 139, Customs Act 1969
- Section 156(1), Customs Act 1969
- Section 156(8)(i)(d)(70), Customs Act 1969
- Section 157, Customs Act 1969
- Section 178, Customs Act 1969
- Section 187, Customs Act 1969
- Section 3(1), Imports and Exports (Control) Act 1950
- Section 3(3), Imports and Exports (Control) Act 1950
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 497(1), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
MUSARRAT HILALI, J.--- The petitioner's post arrest bail was declined by the Lahore High Court, Lahore (the 'High Court') vide order dated 09.09,2024 in case FIR No.31 dated 25.06.2024 registered under sections 2(s), 16, 139, 156(1), (8)(i)(d)(70), 157, 178 and 187 of the Customs Act, 1969 and sections 3(1) and 3(3) of Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1950, SRO dated 666(I)12006 dated 28.06.2006 read with serial 55 Appendix-B Part-I Import Policy Order, 2022 read with serial 30 of Notification SRO No.566(I)/2005 dated 06.06.2005, SRO No.499(I)2009 dated 13.06.2009 at Police Station Investigation and Prosecution Cell, Collectorate of Customs, Allama Iqbal International Airport, Lahore.
2. Allegation against the petitioner is that she was found in possession of 26 foreign made Iphones while using green channel of International Arrival Hall of Allama Iqbal International Airport, Lahore and she could not produce any document of ownership or any document of import.
3. Arguments heard and record perused.
4. Record transpired that on checking 26 foreign origin Iphones valuing rupees 78,46,798/- were recovered from the petitioner while she was passing through the green channel of arrival hall at the Allama lqbal International Airport, Lahore and was arrested on the spot. Both the courts below have declined the post-arrest bail considering that the offence alleged against the petitioner falls within the prohibitory clause of section 497 Cr.P.C.
5. Admittedly, the petitioner is a woman and her case should have been examined by the courts below under first proviso to section 497(1) Cr.P.C if she was not found entitled to bail under section 497(1) Cr.P.C 1 . The courts below should have considered the bail application of the petitioner on its own merits taking into account the petitioner's background, nature of offence and the likelihood of abscondence. The court's decision to dismiss the bail application solely based on the sentence prescribed under the law is unjust as there are precedents where courts have granted bail in cases where the prescribed sentence was significant. Apart from above, the petitioner has no criminal history and there is no apprehension of her abscondence. The travel history of the petitioner alone is not a sufficient ground to believe that she was engaged in such kind of illegal activities. Besides, the prosecution has already gathered all necessary evidence and the petitioner is no more required for custodial interrogation, therefore, keeping her in jail without a court verdict would be equivalent to convicting the petitioner without due process.
6. In view of the above, this petition is converted into an appeal and is allowed. The impugned order date 09.09.2024 is set-aside and the petitioner is admitted to post-arrest bail subject to furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.200;000/- with two sureties in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the trial court.
MH/A-53/SC Bail allowed.