ZIAULISLAM vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal filed by the petitioner against an order of the Sind High Court, which had previously dismissed the petitioner's application for the grant of bail pending trial. The petitioner was facing charges under Section 2(a) and Clause 8 of Section 156(1) read with Section 178 of the Customs Act, 1969. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court's refusal to grant bail was legally sustainable given the facts and circumstances of the case. Upon reviewing the record and hearing the arguments presented by the learned counsel, the Supreme Court found no legal or factual error in the impugned judgment of the High Court. Consequently, the Supreme Court upheld the decision of the High Court, finding no grounds to interfere with the denial of bail. The petition for leave to appeal was accordingly dismissed, affirming that the lower court's exercise of discretion regarding bail in the context of the Customs Act, 1969, was correct and did not warrant appellate intervention.
- Is the refusal of bail by the High Court in a case involving the Customs Act 1969 subject to interference by the Supreme Court where no legal or factual error is demonstrated?
- Does the dismissal of a bail application by the High Court warrant the grant of leave to appeal when the record supports the lower court's decision?
- Section 2(a), Customs Act 1969
- Section 156(1), Customs Act 1969
- Section 178, Customs Act 1969
ORDER
1. ' ABDUL KADIR SHAIKH, J.--This is a petition for leave to appeal from the Order of a learned Judge of Sind High Court dismissing petitioner's application for grant of hail pending his trial under Section 2(a) and Clause 8 of Section 156(1) read with Section 178 of the Customs Act, 1969.
2. After having heard the learned counsel in the light of the record before us we find that no exception in law or on facts can be taken with the impugned judgment of the High Court. The petition is therefore dismissed.