1989 P Cr (PLP)

Since both these bail applications have arisen out of the same order, they are being disposed of by this consolidated order.

2. The staff of the Directorate‑General Intelligence and Investigation (Customs and Excise), Karachi, received a credible information that the local market of electronic and general merchandise was being fed with the banned/contraband goods through diplomatic bond in the name and style of Ocean‑Trade situated at Taj M al Hotel. On 25‑6‑1988, during surveillance it was noticed that sealed lock of the bonded warehouse was opened in the absence of Customs Officer with a duplicate key. Two persons namely Irshad and Sohail, who were supervising the loading of foreign goods in two Pick‑ups were asked to produce clearance documents relating to the said goods, which they could not produce. Consequently the registers of the bonded warehouse were taken into possession. The physical verification of the warehouse and scrutiny of documents revealed that large quantity of deposited goods had been fraudulently removed from the bonded warehouse, thereby causing loss to Government to the tune of Rs. 83,47,910 in customs duty and taxes. On 20‑7‑1988, the F.I.R. in this case was registered. During the course of investigation applicant Irshad, Incharge, Shahid Hussain, Trainee Clerk and Shakeel Ahmad, licensee of the bonded warehouse were taken into custody and after usual investigation were sent up before Special Judge (Customs and Taxation), Karachi, to stand trial for the offence under section 156(1) (8) (59) (7'7) (82) and (89) of the Customs Act, 1969.

3. On 10‑8‑1988, all the three applicants were allowed interim bail by my brother Saeed‑uz‑Zaman Siddiqui, J and they continued to be on bail till 6‑2‑1989, when their bail was confirmed by a short order.

4. I have had the benefit of a very careful arguments on both the sides. Mr. A.R. Khan, learned counsel for applicants in Special Criminal Bail Application No. 86 of 1988, has submitted that the bonds established in Pakistan are of two types. Some bonds cater for the domestic needs and whenever goods are required to be taken out, duty and sales tax are deposited and only then goods are allowed to be released from the bond by the Customs Officer. Any person guilty of illegal removal of any goods from such warehouse is liable to a penalty not exceeding twenty‑five thousand rupees. Section 156(1) (59) of the Customs Act, 1969, is clear on the point. The learned counsel for the above applicants has further submitted that in the bonded warehouse, after being imported by the warehouse owner, goods on the notified list are stocked for sale to diplomats and privileged persons free of duty and taxes. The goods are delivered to the diplomatic and privileged persons or to their accredited agents on payment of a cheque in foreign currency. The cheque is deposited in the account of Government and after due verification the price of goods is then returned to the warehouse owner. It is also submitted on behalf of the applicants that this bond is operated under the joint custody of the Licensee and the Customs Officials within the meaning of section 117 of the Customs Act, 1969, and each item so imported by the Licensee is listed in the General Manifest, which remains in possession of the Customs House. These items are brought into the bond through a bill of entry which also remains in the custody of Assistant Collector Incharge of warehousing. A register is kept by the Appraising Department for inward and outward entries pertaining to the bond. In short, the learned counsel for applicants has submitted that each item being ascertained is accountable and payment is made in foreign currency. He has also invited my attention to the provisions of clause (10‑A) of section 156(1) of the Customs Act, 1969, which ':; relevant in this case and reads as follows:‑ "156(1) (10‑A):‑--If any condition, limitation or restriction imposed by the Federal Government or by the Board for grant of partial or total exemption from custom duties is violated in respect of the goods on which exemption has been granted, such goods shall be liable to confiscation; and the person to whom the exemption was granted shall be liable to penalty not exceeding the ten times the value of the goods and upon conviction by a Special Judge he shall further be liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years."

5. A bare reading of this clause would show that a special provision has been made in respect of a bonded warehouse, which is meant for goods stocked for sale to diplomats and privileged persons free of duty and taxes. If sight is not lost of other relative provisions m this connection including clause (59) of section 156(1) of the Customs Act, 1969, the contention raised on behalf of the applicants appears to be attractive. The offence under section 156(1) (10‑A) of the Customs Act, 1969, is again bailable.

6. The prosecution has also not supported its allegations against the applicants with reference to record. Consequently there are no reasonable grounds to believe that the applicants are guilty for the offence with which they C are charged. The case, therefore, falls under subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C., and the applicants are entitled to the grant of bawl on this score also.

7. The basic question which must be present in the mind of the Court, while considering the question of bail, is whether the grant of bail is necessary in the interest of justice. The general policy of law is to allow bail rather than refuse it. As observed in Manzoor and 4 others v. The State reported in P L D 1972 SC 81, the bail is not to be withheld as punishment. At page 84, the Supreme Court remarks as follows:‑ "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."

8. The applicants are on interim bail granted by my brother Saeed‑uz -Zaman Siddiqui, J. since 10‑8‑1988, and they have not abused the concession extended to them. It was obviously for this reason that Mr. Muhammad Akmal, Wasim, learned counsel for State has also raised no objection to the confirmation of bail granted to all the three applicants. The interim bail granted to applicants, therefore, stands confirmed on the same terms and conditions. SA./I‑66/K Bail confirmed.