Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: Malik MUHAMMAD HANIF VS Respondent: State Barrister Momin Malik, Muhammad Mousa Hayat Tarar and Raza Ahmad Cheema
CITATION: 2026 PTD 1554 CASE: 2026L6038 TITLE: Malik MUHAMMAD HANIF VS State Barrister Momin Malik, Muhammad Mousa Hayat Tarar and Raza Ahmad Cheema COURT: LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE YEAR: 2026 JOURNAL: PTD ============================================================
305 2026 P T D 1554 [Lahore High Court] Before Shehram Sarwar Ch. and Muhammad Tariq Nadeem, JJ Malik MUHAMMAD HANIF Versus The STATE and others Writ Petition No.68909 of 2025, decided on 15th June, 2026. Customs Act (IV of 1969)--- ----Ss. 2(s), 19, 32(1), 156(1), 157, 178, 192 & 209---Customs Rules, 2001, Rr. 232(2) & 234 (EPZ, sub-chapter 3)---S.R.O. 450(I)/2001, dated 18-06-2001---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 498---Evasion of customs duty---Pre-arrest bail, confirmation of---Determination of criminal liability---Order-in-original set aside by Customs Appellate Tribunal---Absence of incriminating material---Mala fide on part of prosecution agency---Investigation complete---No recovery required---No likelihood of tampering with evidence or hampering investigation---Accused/importer was alleged to have evaded customs duty, but order-in-original fixing liability against him had been set aside by Customs Appellate Tribunal---Validity---So long as majority order passed by appellate forum held the field, prosecution agency had no incriminating material connecting accused/importer with commission of offence---Despite absence of incriminating material, continued insistence of prosecution agency on arrest of accused/importer was sufficient to create a probability of mala fide on its part---No recovery was to be effected from accused/importer as investigation had already been completed---There was no apprehension that accused/importer would tamper with evidence or hamper investigation---Division Bench of High Court confirmed ad interim pre-arrest bail granted to accused/importer---Bail application was allowed, in circumstances. Barrister Momin Malik, Muhammad Mousa Hayat Tarar and Raza Ahmad Cheema along with for Petitioner. Noman Hassan Baloch and Aamna Parveen, Special Prosecutors for Customs Department along with Usman, Inspector with record. ORDER Through this petition, Malik Muhammad Hanif petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail in case FIR No.06 dated 22.11.2024 registered for offences under Sections 2(s), 19, 32(1), 157, 178, 192 and 209 of the Customs Act, 1969 read with Rules 232 (2) and 234 of Customs Rules, 2001 (EPZ Sub-chapter 3) of SRO 450(I)/2001 dated 18.06.2001 punishable under clause 8(i)e, 10A, 14, 59, 62, 86 and 90 of subsection (1) of Section 156 of the Customs Act, 1969 at Police Station Investigation and Prosecution Branch, Collectorate of Customs Export, Sialkot. 2. Precisely, the allegation against the petitioner is that he along with his co-accused being importers of a consignment of straw paper in rolls in job lot quality and polypropylene Bundle in job lot quality in connivance with the clearing agent grossly mis-declared the goods in terms of description and the same was pointed out in the examination report of the examining staff of the Collectorate of Customs, Appraisement Port Muhammad Bin Qasim. Furthermore, the scrutiny of the examination reports and pictures uploaded by the examination staff of the Collectorate of Customs Appraisement of Port Muhammad Bin Qasim and Collectorate of the Customs Sambrial Sialkot revealed that the reports were completely different in terms of description and quantity. Hence the petitioner and his co-accused Asad Malik, both importers, along with the clearing agent namely Muhammad Siddiq Asim Awan allegedly misused the Export Processing Zone (EPZ) examination facility thereby attempting to evade duty and taxes in the tune of Rs.593,815,191/-. 3. Arguments heard. Record perused. 4. According to the contents of FIR, the petitioner was the importer of the impugned goods upon which he allegedly evaded the duty and taxes in the tune of Rs.593,815,191/-. It is not disputed that the order-in-original passed by the Collector/Directorate Adjudication, Lahore fixing a liability upon the petitioner was set aside by the Customs Appellate Tribunal, Division Bench-II, Lahore on 18.09.2025 with a majority view. We have specifically asked from the learned Special Prosecutors appearing on behalf of Customs Department whether this order is still in field or suspended by higher forum, they replied that said order still holds in field. 5. In view of the above, we are of the considered view that until and unless the order of the appellate forum is in field, which was passed with the majority view, the prosecution agency does not have any incriminating material to connect the petitioner with the commission of crime. Inspite of having no incriminating material, the continuing insistence of the prosecution to arrest the petitioner is sufficient to create probability of made fide on their part. Nothing is to be recovered from the petitioner as investigation has already been completed. In this scenario, there is no apprehension that the petitioner would temper the evidence or hamper investigation of this case. 6. In view of the above discussion, this petition is allowed and ad-interim pre-arrest bail already granted to the petitioner by this Court vide order dated 20.11.2025 is hereby confirmed subject to his furnishing fresh bail bonds in the sum of Rs.10,00,000/- (rupees one million only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court. Before parting with this order, it is clarified that the observations made in this order are purely tentative in nature and relevant only for the disposal of this bail petition, which shall not influence the learned trial court in any manner whatsoever. MH/M-31/L Pre-arrest bail granted.