Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
[Lahore]
Before Rustam S. Sidhwa, J
RIAZ‑‑Petitioner
versus
THE STATE‑‑Respondent
Criminal Miscellaneous No.2/B/C of 1988, decided on 3rd February, 1988.
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑--
--‑‑S. 497‑‑Customs Act (IV of 1969), Ss. 156(1) (8), (89) & (157)‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑Petitioner, accused of smuggling Indian liquor‑‑Question whether maximum penalty provided by S. 156(1) (8) of Customs Act, would be awarded, yet to be determined after recording of evidence‑‑Investigation over and petitioner no more required for any recovery‑‑Petitioner behind the bars for about six weeks‑ Bail allowed in circumstances.
Muhammad Altaf v. Nazir Ahmad etc. P L D 1975 Lah. 568 and Abdul Hay‑uz‑Zafar v. The State 1983 P Cr.LJ 2010 ref.
Sh. Masud Akhtar for Petitioner.
Maqbool Ahmad for Customs Authority.
ORDER
This is a petition under section 497, Cr.P.C. by Riaz, petitioner, for bail in respect of a case instituted against him vide F.I.R. No. 288/1987 registered at Police Station Batapur, Lahore, on 23‑12‑1987.
2. The bail is sought in respect of the offences under sections 156(1) (8) (89) and 157 of the Customs Act, 1969 only.
3. The prosecution case in brief is that on 23‑12‑1987 at about 4.30 a.m. a police party picketed near the defence line located in Mouza Charriwala Ghab, tried to intercept two persons, who had bundles on their heads and were coming from the side of India. Both the persons three their bundles on the ground and began running in the direction of India. Riaz, petitioner, was apprehended, but the other managed to escape under the cover of darkness. On opening the bundles, 71 bottles of Indian whisky were found intact whereas 4 appeared to have broken.
4. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the Customs Authorities and have perused the record. It yet remains to be seen, after evidence is recorded in the case, whether the maximum penalty imposed by section 156(1) (8) of the Customs Act will be awarded. This is not a case relating to smuggling of narcotics, where the maximum sentence may be awarded. In cases where it is prima facie felt that the maximum sentence is not likely to be awarded, this Court has allowed bail. See Muhammad Altaf v. Nazir Ahmad etc. (P L D 1975 Lah. 568)and Abdul Hay‑uz‑Zafar v. The State (1983 P Cr.LJ 2010). The investigation is over and the petitioner is not required for any recovery. The petitioner has been behind the bars since 23‑12‑1987.
5. For the foregoing reasons, this petition is accepted and Riaz petitioner, is released on bail, subject to his furnishing security in the sum of Rupees fifty thousand (Rs. 50,000) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Special Judge, Customs, Lahore.
S.G.D./R‑66/L. Bail allowed.