Connect Pakistan Case Law to Claude, ChatGPT, Gemini or any AI assistantUse this library inside your AI assistantSet up free
← Search
2026 PTD 1554
[Lahore High Court]

Malik MUHAMMAD HANIF Versus State Barrister Momin Malik, Muhammad Mousa Hayat Tarar and Raza Ahmad Cheema

Writ Petition No.68909 of 2025, decided on 15th June, 2026.
⭐ Prefer in Google
Summary

This petition was filed by an importer seeking pre-arrest bail in a criminal case registered under various provisions of the Customs Act, 1969 and the Customs Rules, 2001, relating to the alleged misdeclaration of imported goods and evasion of duty and taxes amounting to Rs. 593,815,191/-. The core legal question was whether pre-arrest bail ought to be confirmed where the adjudication order establishing the tax liability against the accused had been set aside by the Customs Appellate Tribunal, yet the prosecution persisted in seeking his arrest. The High Court confirmed the ad-interim pre-arrest bail, observing that because the appellate tribunal's order setting aside the tax liability remained in the field, the prosecution possessed no incriminating material connecting the petitioner to the alleged offences. Consequently, the court held that the prosecution's continued insistence on arrest demonstrated a probability of mala fides, and since investigation was complete with no recovery pending, the petitioner's apprehension of arrest was unjustified.

Questions settled in this judgment
  • Can pre-arrest bail be confirmed when an order-in-original fixing tax liability has been set aside by an appellate tribunal and remains in the field?
  • Does the prosecution's insistence on arresting an accused without incriminating material establish a probability of mala fides?
  • Whether pre-arrest bail may be granted in a customs evasion case when the investigation is complete and no recoveries remain to be effected from the accused?
pre-arrest bailCustoms Act 1969Customs Rules 2001misdeclarationevasion of dutyCustoms Appellate Tribunalmala fide arrest

ORDER

Through this petition, Malik Muhammad Hanif petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail in case FIR No.06 dated 22.11.2024 registered for offences under Sections 2(s), 19, 32(1), 157, 178, 192 and 209 of the Customs Act, 1969 read with Rules 232 (2) and 234 of Customs Rules, 2001 (EPZ Sub-chapter 3) of SRO 450(I)/2001 dated 18.06.2001 punishable under clause 8(i)e, 10A, 14, 59, 62, 86 and 90 of subsection (1) of Section 156 of the Customs Act, 1969 at Police Station Investigation and Prosecution Branch, Collectorate of Customs Export, Sialkot.

2.Precisely, the allegation against the petitioner is that he along with his co-accused being importers of a consignment of straw paper in rolls in job lot quality and polypropylene Bundle in job lot quality in connivance with the clearing agent grossly mis-declared the goods in terms of description and the same was pointed out in the examination report of the examining staff of the Collectorate of Customs, Appraisement Port Muhammad Bin Qasim. Furthermore, the scrutiny of the examination reports and pictures uploaded by the examination staff of the Collectorate of Customs Appraisement of Port Muhammad Bin Qasim and Collectorate of the Customs Sambrial Sialkot revealed that the reports were completely different in terms of description and quantity. Hence the petitioner and his co-accused Asad Malik, both importers, along with the clearing agent namely Muhammad Siddiq Asim Awan allegedly misused the Export Processing Zone (EPZ) examination facility thereby attempting to evade duty and taxes in the tune of Rs.593,815,191/-.

3.Arguments heard. Record perused.

4.According to the contents of FIR, the petitioner was the importer of the impugned goods upon which he allegedly evaded the duty and taxes in the tune of Rs.593,815,191/-. It is not disputed that the order-in-original passed by the Collector/Directorate Adjudication, Lahore fixing a liability upon the petitioner was set aside by the Customs Appellate Tribunal, Division Bench-II, Lahore on 18.09.2025 with a majority view. We have specifically asked from the learned Special Prosecutors appearing on behalf of Customs Department whether this order is still in field or suspended by higher forum, they replied that said order still holds in field.

5.In view of the above, we are of the considered view that until and unless the order of the appellate forum is in field, which was passed with the majority view, the prosecution agency does not have any incriminating material to connect the petitioner with the commission of crime. Inspite of having no incriminating material, the continuing insistence of the prosecution to arrest the petitioner is sufficient to create probability of made fide on their part. Nothing is to be recovered from the petitioner as investigation has already been completed. In this scenario, there is no apprehension that the petitioner would temper the evidence or hamper investigation of this case.

6.In view of the above discussion, this petition is allowed and ad-interim pre-arrest bail already granted to the petitioner by this Court vide order dated 20.11.2025 is hereby confirmed subject to his furnishing fresh bail bonds in the sum of Rs.10,00,000/- (rupees one million only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court. Before parting with this order, it is clarified that the observations made in this order are purely tentative in nature and relevant only for the disposal of this bail petition, which shall not influence the learned trial court in any manner whatsoever.

MH/M-31/L Pre-arrest bail granted.

Judges on this bench

For educational and research use only — not legal advice. Verify against the official report before relying on it. See our Disclaimer.
Email me when a new judgment cites this one, or get new judgments by email.