1980 P Cr (PLP)

‑‑--S. 497‑Recovery already effected and challan submitted to trial Court‑Petitioner accused of offence under ' S. 156 (1) (89). Customs Act, in custody for more than 2 months and his further detention no longer required for prosecution of case‑Petitioner allowed bail, in circumstances.‑[Recovery]. Qazi Umar Draz for Petitioner. Sh. Maqbul Ahmad for the State. The petitioner is accused in a case under section 156 (1) (89) of the Customs Act arising from F.

1. R. No. 372, dated 23rd July, 1979 of Police Station, Civil Lines, Rawalpindi. The allegation against him is that on checking, his attached‑case which he had tendered at his baggage at the Islamabad airport immediately before his intended departure for London. was found to contain 12 killograms of charas valued at Rs. 1,00,000.

2. It is stated by learned counsel for the State that the offence also attracts the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979, and is punishable for two years. The matter however before me is the case tinder the Customs Act.

3. Learned counsel for the State informs this Court that the challan in the Customs case has since been submitted.

4. Bail is urged on the ground that the lodging of the F. I. R. was delayed by 13‑14 hours and that the petitioner's baggage had weighed 12 killograms less when handed over to the F. I. A. than it had weighed at the time of the search. According to the F. I. R., the recovery had taken place at 11‑30 in the night of 22nd July, 1979, but the F. I. R. had been lodged on the report of the Deputy Superintendent, Customs, at 1‑15 in the day on 23rd July, 1979. Since the question of delay is a matter which the prosecution can explain during the trial, the same cannot be taken into consideration at this stag. The other ground raised regarding difference in the weight of the baggage is also a matter for evidence in the weight of the baggage is also a matter for evidence.

5. I am mindful of the fact that the offence being punishable with imprisonment for ten years under the Customs Act, attracts the prohibition of section

497. Cr. P. C. in the matter of grant of bail. But considering the fact that the recovery had already been effected, that the challan has since been submitted and that the petitioner has already remained in custody for more than two months and that his further detention is no longer required for the prosecution of the case. I am inclined to admit him to bail. I, therefore, direct that he be released on his furnishing a bond in the sum of Rs. 25.000 (rupees twenty‑five thousand only) with two sureties in the like sum each to the satisfaction of the trial Court. Copy dasti on usual charges.