1969 PLP 233 (SCMR)

(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of West Pakistan, Karachi Bench, Karachi, dated the 18th August 1967, in Criminal Bail Application No. 226 of 1967). Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) --S. 497‑Criminal charge short of involving a sentence of death or transportation for life‑Bail should ordinarily be allowed disregarding grounds of seriousness or anti‑social nature of offence unless there be strong grounds in shape of evidence for belief that accused is guilty Sea Customs Act (VIII of 1878), Ss. 167(8!), 162 &

212. Murtaza Hussain, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Ijaz Ali, Attorney for the State. JUDGMENT SAJJAD AHMAD, J.‑This is an appeal by special leave relating to .the petitioner's bail in case under section 167 (8a), (81) and sections 162 and 212 of the Sea Customs Act for which he is being tried in the Court of the City and Additional District Magistrate, Karachi. The allegation against him is that he along with some others was concerned with the smuggling into Pakistan of a large. quantity of gold valued about one crore of rupees. The offences are punishable with 6 years' R. I. in the maximum apart from fine. The High Court conceded that bail should ordinarily be granted in cases of offences not punishable with death or transportation for life but found that in the present case there are exceptional circumstances for not releasing the applicant on bail leaving the question open for reconsideration "after a final challan has been presented and some evidence has been recorded". The learned Single Judge of the High Court thought that there were very strong and substantial reasons to believe and to connect the petition prima facie with the commission of the offences and he has further held that the release of the applicant on bail would result in his tampering with the evidence that may be recorded. Leave to appeal was granted by this Court on the 2nd of October 1967, on the ground that the evidence against the petitioner was still to be evaluated arid that as a general rule on a charge of the kind made in this case not involving a sentence of death or transportation for life, bail should ordinarily be allowed disregarding the grounds of the seriousness or anti‑social nature of the offence unless there be strong grounds, in the shape of evidence for the belief that he is guilty. Ad interim bail was allowed to the petitioner leaving it open to the prosecu tion to move for its reconsideration presenting before the Court all the material in their possession including the confessional statements which had allegedly been made by some of the co‑accused persons. The State did not apply for cancellation of the interim bail and no circumstance has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondent to justify the cancellation of the petitioner's bail at this stage. We will accept this appeal and direct that the petitioner shall continue to remain on bail already furnished by him under orders of this Court during the pendency of the case. It will, however, be open to the prosecution to move the High Court for the cancellation of the petitioner's bail on some fresh ground, if that step be considered justified. Order accordingly. Appeal accepted.