1998 PLP 1656 (MLD)

Ss. 497 & 103

Customs Act (IV of 1969), Ss. 156(1), (8), (89) & 157-- Bail, grant of

Huge quantity of gold was allegedly concealed by accused persons in their rectums which was recovered and because at the relevant time independent witnesses of area could not have been associated, a departure from the provisions of S. 103, Cr.P.C., could have been made

Even if co-accused was granted bail, that by itself would be no ground to grant bail to accused person as well

Trial Court, thus, rightly rejected bail application of accused persons giving very valid reasons. G.M. Saleem for. Applicant (in Special Criminal Bail Application No.7 of 1994) Muhammad Ayub Khanzada for Applicant (In Special Criminal Bail Application No.9 of 1994). Ikram Ahmad Ansari, Deputy Attorney-General for Pakistan. Applicants Muhammad Ashraf, Muhammad Iqbal and Muhammad Faiz in. these bail applications are detained in Crime No.3203 of 1994 under sections 156(1), (8) and (89) and 157 of the Customs Act, 1969 for having violated the provisions of sections 2(S) and 16 of the said Act. Bail applications filed on behalf of the applicants before the trial Court of Special Judge (Customs & Taxation), Karachi are dismissed by order dated 10-3-1994. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the applicants and the Deputy Attorney-General. The main contentions raised by Mr. G.M. Saleem, learned advocate for the applicants Muhammad Ashraf and Muhammad Iqbal are that there has been violation of the provisions of section 171 of the Customs Act as the required notice was not served in accordance with law; that the prosecution story is improbable inasmuch as huge quantity of gold could not possibly have been carried/concealed by the applicants in their rectums and lastly that co-accused Muhammad Sohail who was said to be the owner of the recovered gold, has since been released on bail by the trial Court a copy of which order is produced (page 13). Mr. Muhammad Ayoob Khanzada; learned advocate for applicant Muhammad Faiz has reiterated the same contentions and has further argued that the offence in the circumstances would fall under section 89 of the Customs Act and not under the provisions as are shown either in the F.I.R. or in the challan, and the offence at the most would be punishable to imprisonment for 5 years and would not be covered by prohibitory clause of section 497 of Cr.P.C. Both the learned counsel also contended that there has been violation of the provisions of section 103, Cr.P.C. inasmuch as the respectable inhabitants of the area were not associated during search and recovery proceedings. Bail is vehemently opposed by the learned Deputy Attorney-General who has argued that the applicants were found carrying huge quantity of gold in their rectum and till some evidence is recorded, the contentions raised by the applicants' learned Advocates cannot be properly adverted to. It is also argued that the trial is likely to commence in the near future and till such time as some evidence is recorded, it may be held that it would be premature to grant bail to the applicants. I have gone through the order of the learned Trial Court and have also perused the contents of the F.I.R. and the challan. A huge quantity of gold was allegedly concealed by the applicants in their rectum which was recovered and because at the relevant time independent witnesses of the area could not have been associated, a departure from the provisions of section 103, Cr.P.C. could have been made. Because the co-accused Sohail has been granted bail by the learned Trial Court, that by itself would be no ground to grant bail to these applicants as well. The bail applications moved on behalf of the applicants are rejected by very valid reasons and the order of the learned trial Court calls for t no interference. The applications are dismissed. H.B.T./M-2113/K Application dismissed