1989 PLP 861 (MLD)

Special Criminal Bail Application No. 26 of 1988, decided on 1st March, 1988. ‑‑‑S. 497‑‑Customs Act (IV of 1969), S.156(1)(8)‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑Money recovered from accused did not belong to him but was handed over to him by some one for delivery abroad‑‑Names of both sender and receiver were shown as absconders in column No.2 of challan‑‑Contention that as accused was an employee of the Airline and had abused his official position as such was disentitled to concession of bail, was repelled‑‑Case of accused at least was of a carrier entitling him to concession of bail. Noorul and others v. The State 1976 S C M R 190 and Bukhari Shah v. The State 1983 S C M R 727 ref. Muhammad Ali Shaikh for Applicant. Jalaluddin Baloch for the State. The accused has been challaned under section 156(1)(8) of the Customs Act, 1969.The allegation against the applicant in the F.I.R. is that he attempted to smuggle Pakistani Currency amounting to Rs.14,37,500 which was concealed in the baggage of the applicant. Learned counsel for the applicant firstly contended that the search in this case was carried‑on in violation of sections 158 and 159 of the Customs Act and as such the very basis of the case having been vitiated the case will fall under the category of further enquiry and the applicant is entitled to concession of bail. The alternate argument raised by the learned counsel for the applicant is that according to the statement made in the challan submitted before the Court the money did not belong to the applicant as it was handed over to him by the one Muhammad Umar in Karachi and was to be delivdred to one Manan, shopkeeper is Dubai. In column No.2 of the challan the names of both the two accused are shown as absconders. It is accordingly contended that the case of the applicant is at best of a carrier and as such in view of the pronouncement in the A case of Noorul and others v. The State 1976 S C M R 190 which was subsequently affirmed in the case of Bukhari Shah v. The State 1983 S C M R 727 the applicant is entitled to concession of bail. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand: contended that as the applicant was an employee of P.I.A. and has abused his official position he is disentitled to the concession of bail. I am not inclined to agree with the learned counsel for the State as I have not been able to find any distinction between the present case and that of Noorul and others v. The State 1976 S C M R 190 and Bukhari Shah v. The State 1983 S C M R 727 referred to above. I accordingly admit the applicant to bail in the sum of Rs. Five lacs with one surety and P.R. in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Nazir of this Court. H.B.T./A-509/K Bail granted.