1986 P Cr (PLP)

‑‑‑S. 497‑‑Customs Act (IV of 1969), S. 185(F)‑‑Bail, grant of‑ Beneficiary‑‑Recovery of huge quantity of Charas from suit‑case of accused‑‑Sufficient documentary evidence connecting accused with offending goods‑‑Suit‑case opened by accused with key recovered from his brief‑case‑‑Travelling documents also secured‑‑Recovery witnesses having no enmity with accused‑‑Sufficient evidence of incriminating nature available‑‑Reasonable grounds to believe that accused had committed offence as alleged against ‑him existing‑‑Bail refused in circumstances. Nabi Bux v. The State P L D 1986 P Cr. L J 202 distinguished. M.S. Khattak for Applicant. Abdul Sattar, A.G. for the State. Applicant is facing trial for offence under section 156(1)(8) of the Customs Act. It is alleged that on 7‑1‑1986 he was arrested at the Karachi Airport while he was about to leave for Istanbul by Turkish Airline flight. His suit‑case was searched and from the false cavities of its lid and bottom 6J kilograms of Charas were recovered. After completion of investigation he has been challaned. Mr. M.S. Khattak, Advocate for applicant has urged bail plea on two grounds. Firstly that applicant cannot be connected with suit‑case and he has pointed out mistake in the baggage tag number which according to him are different as mentioned in F.I.R. and two places in challan. Perusal of F.I.R. snows that suit‑case bearing baggage Tag No. T . K. 880458. In the interim challan presented baggage tag number of the suit‑case is shown T. K. 8804558. On page 2 of Challan on line before the end of first paragraph baggage tag number mentioned as T. K. 8080458. In this context Mr. Abdul Sattar, Advocate has explained that this is on account of typographical mistake otherwise the number is T.K. 88045 as mentioned in Column No. 4 of F.I.R. Furthermore, he has produced original baggage tag number and the tag number mentioned on the Airline Ticket. I have myself seen these original documents and I am satisfied that the correct tag number is T. K. 880458. Perusal of record shows that applicant was caught red‑handed at the spot and there is sufficient documentary evidence to connect him with the offending goods. Suit‑case from which recovery was made, was opened by applicant with key produced by him. Not only this but he has been made to put his signature on the said suitcase. His brief case was searched which yielded key of the suit‑case with which applicant himself had opened the said suit‑case. His travelling documents were also secured, recovery is made in presence of two Mashirs who have no enmity with applicant. No such enmity has been alleged against the Seizing Officer. Huge quantity of Charas has been recovered. Second ground as urged by the learned counsel is that applicant is entitled to bail on the ground that he is a beneficiary and is not owner and owner is not arrested. Reliance is placed by the learned counsel for the applicant on order passed by me granting bail in Criminal Bail Application No. 30/85 Nabi Bux v. The State reported in P L D 1986 PCr.LJ

202. The facts of that case are distinguishable for the reasons that in that case bail was granted to the driver of the truck in which bottles of foreign whisky and one V.C.R. were found concealed under the firewood. Abdul Rehman Shah who was the owner of the consignment was also arrested but was released on bail by the learned Special Judge. In the instant case the facts are different and Mr. Abdul Sattar has submitted that there is mentioned in the papers relating to the investigation about one Mehmood but when applicant was arrested he made no mention of Mehmood and it appeared that ticket of applicant was issued alongwith some other tickets and that is how, it came to be known that two tickets were issued, one to applicant Ashraf and other to Mehmood. Mehmood succeeded in getting away. In the case cited by the learned counsel in which I have granted bail, the main ground was that the main accused was also granted bail. The facts of the present case are different. There is sufficient evidence of incriminating nature available with 'prosecution to show that there are reasonable grounds to believe that applicant has committed offence alleged against him as contemplated under section 497, Cr.P.C. As such, I feel disinclined to grant bail. Bail application is dismissed. S. A. Bail application dismissed.