2007 PLP 1126 (YLR)

MRS. QAISAR IQBAL, J.--Applicants have resorted to file bail application connected along with co-accused for commission of offence punishable under sections 156(1)(8) and 178 of the Customs Act, 1969: On the basis of information conveyed by Maritime Security Agency on 22-3-2006, fishing launch was intercepted by the Customs Intelligence Directorate from the coastal area Karachi found containing foreign origin liquor of assorted brand and 3456 tins of beer secured from the applicants and co-accused, they were arrested in commission of the charged offences, they approached the Special Judge (Customs and Taxation) Karachi for redress, their plea of bail was rejected. Mr. Habibur Rashid, learned counsel for the applicants contended that the applicants were labourer had no knowledge about the stuff loaded in launch. It is specifically pleaded that the co-accused Ghulam Muhammad, was the owner of the seized launch, the case of the applicants is not at par with offence committed by the owner. In support of the above contention reliance is placed on the case of Noorul and others v. The State (1976 SCMR 190), the dictum laid down is that the real beneficiary of the smuggled goods viz. the owner of the launch had disappeared where the petitioners were only his paid servants, indicated that the offences committed by the petitioners was not at par than of offence committed by Noor Muhammad, who is yet to be brought at trial. Mr. Mehmood Alam Rizvi, learned D.A.-G., relied upon the interim challan and vehemently opposed the bail plea of the applicant. Muhammad Ali Tandal accompanied with the crew members when the launch was seized whereas he has fairly conceded to the case of applicant Jamil, explicitly on the premise that he was not the beneficiary of the foreign origin liquor worth crore of rupees smuggled from U.A.E. into Pakistan. I have given anxious consideration to the contention raised, contraband foreign origin liquor was seized from the launch, interim challan reveals that the owner of the launch was arrested. Considering the question of bail, the general policy of the law is to allow bail rather than to refuse it as observed in Manzoor v. The State (PLD 1972 SC 81), bail cannot be withheld as a punishment, the relevant dictum is reproduced hereinbelow:-- "It is important to remember that bail is not to be withheld as a punishment. There is no legal or moral compulsion to keep people in jail merely on the allegation that they have committed offences punishable with death or transportation, unless reasonable grounds appear to exist to disclose their complicity. The ultimate conviction and incarceration of a guilty person can repair the wrong caused by a mistaken relief of interim bail granted to him, but no satisfactory reparation can be offered to an innocent man for his unjustified incarceration at any stage, of the case albeit his acquittal in the long run." The status of applicant Jamil as conceded by learned D.A.-G. is that of the' loader though he was arrested from the launch yet his case is not at par with the offence committed by applicant Muhammad, who is Tandal (Nakhuda) of the launch, the applicant is behind the bar for about eight months without progress in the case. Taking into consideration the above facts and circumstances, the applicant Jamil son of Yousaf is hereby admitted on bail subject to furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs.100,000 and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court, whereas the case of applicant Muhammad son of Saeed Muhammad is distinguishable from the case of applicant Jamil admitted on bail, therefore, his bail plea is rejected with the direction to the trial Court to commence with trial of the case in accordance with the law and dispose of the same expeditiously. H.B.T./J-3/K Bail granted.