Rule of consistency in bail of custom actRule of consistency in bail of custom act.
 |
| Rule of consistency in bail of custom act |
**سپریم کورٹ آف پاکستان**
*(اپیلیٹ دائرہ اختیار)*
**موجودہ:**
مسٹر جسٹس محمد علی مظہر
مسٹر جسٹس عرفان سادات خان
**کریمنل پٹیشن نمبر 35-K/2024**
ضمانت کی درخواست کے بارے میں 14.03.2024 کو سندھ ہائی کورٹ، کراچی کی جانب سے جاری کردہ حکم کے خلاف، خصوصی کرمنل ضمانت اپیل نمبر 17/2024
**عتی اللہ**
…مدعی
**مقابل**
**ریاست**
…مدعا علیہ
**مدعی کے لیے:**
مسٹر نثار احمد بھنبھرو، اے ایس سی
**ریاست کے لیے:**
مسٹر خلیق احمد، ڈی اے جی
**سننے کی تاریخ:**
04.04.2024
**حکم**
**محمد علی مظہر، ج.**
1. یہ کرمنل پٹیشن ضمانت کی درخواست کے خلاف ہے جو 14.03.2024 کو سندھ ہائی کورٹ، کراچی کی جانب سے خصوصی کرمنل ضمانت درخواست نمبر 17، 18 اور 19/2024 میں جاری کی گئی تھی۔
2. ایف آئی آر نمبر M-4070/DCI/Seiz/2024 کے مطابق، جو محمد اظہر عزیز، انٹیلیجنس آفیسر، ڈائریکٹوریٹ جنرل انٹیلیجنس اینڈ انویسٹی گیشن (کسٹمز)، کراچی نے درج کی، یہ رپورٹ کی گئی کہ غیر ادا شدہ پیٹرولیم، آئل اور لپریکنٹس (POL) کراچی سے پاک-عرب رفیڈری لمیٹڈ (PARCO) تک وائٹ آئل پائپ لائن کے ذریعے منتقل کی جا رہی تھی، جسے کچھ بدنیتی پر مبنی عناصر چوری کر رہے تھے۔ ایک چھپی ہوئی پائپ لائن کو شمالی مغربی صنعتی زون، پورٹ قاسم اتھارٹی، کراچی کے گودام میں پایا گیا۔ تلاشی کے دوران 174 فٹ لمبی سرنگ ملی جو PARCO کی وائٹ آئل پائپ لائن تک جاتی تھی، اور چوری شدہ POL سے لدی گاڑیاں ملیں۔ گرفتار شدگان میں عتی اللہ (مدعی) بھی شامل ہے، جسے گاڑی کے پائلٹ کے طور پر تعینات کیا گیا تھا۔
3. مدعی کے وکیل نے یہ دلیل دی کہ ایف آئی آر درج کرنے میں 14 گھنٹے کی غیر ضروری تاخیر ہوئی ہے اور مدعی کا کردار بھی دوسرے ملزمان کے مشابہ ہے جنہیں ہائی کورٹ نے ضمانت دی ہے۔ اس بنا پر، مدعی کو بھی ضمانت دی جانی چاہیے۔
4. سرکاری وکیل نے کہا کہ مدعی کے خلاف کافی شواہد موجود ہیں کہ وہ جرم میں ملوث ہے اور ہائی کورٹ نے ضمانت کے فیصلے میں درست فیصلہ کیا ہے۔
5. دلائل سننے کے بعد، ہم نے دیکھا کہ مدعی کو پائلٹ کے طور پر تعینات کیا گیا ہے۔ ہائی کورٹ نے چار دوسرے ملزمان کو ضمانت دی تھی جن کے کردار مدعی کے کردار سے مختلف تھے۔ چونکہ مدعی کی ملوثیت پر مزید شواہد درکار ہیں اور اس وقت اس کے خلاف براہ راست شواہد موجود نہیں ہیں، مزید تحقیق ضروری ہے۔
6. "مزید تحقیق" کا اصول یہ بتاتا ہے کہ اگر شواہد میں کوئی معقول شبہ ہو تو ضمانت دی جا سکتی ہے، اور "برابری" کا اصول یہ کہتا ہے کہ اگر کردار مشابہ ہو تو ضمانت دی جائے۔ چونکہ مدعی کا کردار دوسرے ملزمان کے مشابہ ہے اور مزید شواہد کی ضرورت ہے، ہم مدعی کو ضمانت دینے کے حق میں ہیں۔
7. لہذا، یہ درخواست اپیل میں تبدیل کر دی گئی ہے اور منظور کر لی گئی ہے۔ مدعی کو دو لاکھ روپے کے مچلکے اور اسی مقدار کے ایک ضامن کے ساتھ ضمانت دی جاتی ہے۔ مدعی کو trial کورٹ میں باقاعدگی سے پیش ہونے کی ہدایت دی جاتی ہے، بصورت دیگر، استغاثہ ضمانت منسوخ کرنے کی درخواست کر سکتا ہے۔
8. یہ مشاہدات عبوری نوعیت کے ہیں اور مقدمے کی سماعت کے دوران فریقین کے حق میں کوئی اثر انداز نہیں ہوں گے۔
**جج**
**جج**
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN
(Appellate Jurisdiction)
Present:
Mr. Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar
Mr. Justice Irfan Saadat Khan
Criminal Petition No.35-K/2024
Against the judgment dated 14.3.2024 passed by
High Court of Sindh, Karachi in Spl. Cr. Bail Appeal
No.17/2024
Attaullah
…Petitioner(s)
Versus
The State
…Respondent(s)
For the Petitioner:
Mr. Nisar Ahmed Bhanbhro, ASC
For the State:
Mr. Khaleeque Ahmed, DAG
Date of Hearing:
04.04.2024
O R D E R
Muhammad Ali Mazhar, J.- This criminal petition for leave to appeal is
directed against the order dated 14.03.2024 passed by the High Court of
Sindh, Karachi, in Special Criminal Bail Application No. 17, 18 & 19 of
2024.
2. According to the First Information Report, Muhammad Azhar Azeem,
Intelligence Officer, Directorate General Intelligence and Investigation
(Customs), lodged the FIR No.M-4070/DCI/Seiz/2024 under Sections
2(s), 16, 157 (1) and 178 of the Customs Act, 1969 at P.S Directorate
General I & I-Customs, Karachi, wherein he reported that the AntiSmuggling Wing of the Directorate of Intelligence and InvestigationCustoms, Karachi, received an information that non-paid Petroleum, Oil
and Lubricants (POL) are transported from Karachi to Pak-Arab Refinery
Limited (PARCO) through White Oil Pipeline which is being
pilfered/stolen by some unscrupulous elements by clamping/welding a
concealed pipeline at the warehouse situated at North West, Industrial
Crl.P.35-K/24 -2-
Zone, Port Qasim Authority, Karachi, and they are selling the said stolen
POL in the open market. After obtaining search warrant, notice was
served to the tenant/possession-holder of the warehouse, namely Vijaish
Kumar S/O Radha Kirshan, and a search was initiated. During the
search, the raiding team discovered of a 174 feet long tunnel that led to
“White Oil Pipeline” of PARCO, three vehicles bearing Registration Nos.
E-1425 (Container), TKV-528 and TKE-088 (Both Mazda Truck) having
concealed tanks loaded with stolen/non-duty paid POL., and a Suzuki
Swift Car bearing Registration No. BXJ-330 used as pilot to clear the
loaded stolen POL. Apart from the tenant/possession-holder, the other
culprits who were available there were Attaullah S/O Allah Diwayo
Khushik, Pilot, Amjad Ali S/O Kareem Baksh, Mugshi, Naseebo Khad
S/O ATI Hasan, Chokidar, Imran Siddique S/O Abdul Ilal, Pilot, Vijaish
Kumar S/O Radha Kirshan, Mohamımad Wafa Brohi Sio Fatah Uddin,
Chokidar, Mohammad Usman Tanveer S/O Tanveer Shoukat, Driver of
Mazda Truck Regtt. No. TKE-088, Irfan S/O Akbar Khan, Cleaner of
Mazda Truck Regtt. No. TKV-528, and Aamir S/O Sajid, Labor.
Therefore, all the recovered goods and vehicles were taken into custody
and the available culprits involved in the illegal activity were arrested
along with their personal mobile phones after serving of notice under
Section 171 of the Customs Act, 1969 (“Customs Act”).
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that there is an
inordinate delay of 14 hours in the registration of FIR without any
plausible explanation, though it is claimed that the raiding party, after
seizure of the recovered articles, promptly rushed to the customs police.
The unexplained delay shows that after due deliberation, many persons
were unnecessarily involved in the alleged crime. He further argued that
there is no evidence of any smuggling against the petitioner. It was also
contended that there is no evidence on record to say that the petitioner
was a pilot, his role is identical to other co-accused persons whom the
High Court has granted bail, and keeping in mind the rule of
consistency, the present petitioner is also entitled for the same relief.
4. The learned Deputy Attorney General (“DAG”) waived the notice and
argued that there is ample evidence available on the record against the
petitioner who is involved in the pilferage and stealing of POL with other
co-accused, hence his bail application was rightly dismissed by the High
Court. He further contended that the High Court granted bail to 4 co-
Crl.P.35-K/24 -3-
accused persons but their role was different than the role of the present
petitioner.
5. Heard the arguments. To start with, we called upon the learned DAG
to highlight the role assigned to the present petitioner in the FIR. He
responded that, in fact, the petitioner has been assigned the role of pilot
to a vehicle in which the stolen POL was stored for transporting it to
some other destination. It is an admitted position that the learned High
Court granted bail to four co-accused persons, namely, Naseebo Khan,
Muhammad Wafa Brohi, Amjad Ali, and Aamir Ali. The FIR indicates the
case of joint recovery of stolen POL from several persons including the
petitioner and 4 other persons who have already been extended the
benefit of bail by the learned High Court. According to the FIR, all
recovered goods were taken into custody and the available culprits
involved in the illegal activity were arrested along with their mobile
phones after serving notice under Section 171 of the Customs Act. It is
not the case of the prosecution at this stage that the petitioner was found
stealing or pilfering the POL but he was attributed the role of pilot.
Whether he is involved directly or vicariously or with the group of
persons with common intention to commit the crime of the alleged
smuggling is something that cannot be decided without recording
evidence to prove his guilt, and in our considered view, requires further
inquiry.
6. The case of further inquiry pre-supposes the tentative assessment
which may create doubt with respect to the involvement of the accused
in the crime whereas the expression “reasonable grounds” refers to
grounds which may be legally tenable, admissible in evidence, and
appealing to a reasonable judicial mind as opposed to being whimsical,
arbitrary, or presumptuous. The prosecution has to demonstrate that it
is in possession of sufficient material/evidence, constituting 'reasonable
grounds' that accused had committed an offence falling within the
prohibitory limb of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898,
while for attaining bail, the accused has to show that the
evidence/material collected by the prosecution and/or the defence plea
taken by him created reasonable doubt/suspicion in the prosecution
case and he is entitled to the benefit of bail. For all intents and purposes,
the doctrine of ‘further inquiry’ denotes a notional and exploratory
assessment that may create doubt regarding the involvement of the
accused in the crime. It is a well-settled exposition of law that the object
Crl.P.35-K/24 -4-
of a trial is to make an accused face the trial, and not to punish an
under trial prisoner. The basic idea is to enable the accused to answer
the criminal prosecution against him, rather than let him rot behind
bars. The astuteness and insight that bail is the rule and jail is the
exception
is overwhelmingly
recognized through the repetitive
pronouncements of this Court. There is no hard and fast rule or
inflexible principle to regulate the exercise of the discretion for grant of
bail except that the discretion should be exercised judiciously and there
is no inexorable principle in the matter of extending bail but it depends
on the facts and circumstances of each case while exercising judicial
discretion in granting, refusing, or cancelling the facility of bail, which is
neither punitive nor preventative, but is based on an important feature of
the criminal justice system that cannot be ignored; that just as liberty is
precious for an individual, simultaneously, the interest of the society in
maintaining law and order is also dominant. In our view, both are
immensely indispensable for the survival and perpetuation of a civilized
society.
7. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner was
a low paid employee like other four persons who have been granted bail
by the High Court. Seemingly, his role does not appear to be different
than the role of the other co-accused persons, namely, Naseebo Khan,
Muhammad Wafa Brohi, Amjad Ali, and Aamir Ali who were arrested
with the petitioner allegedly on the spot where they all were found in
commission of the offence, and on arrest, a joint recovery was made,
while the petitioner was said to be the pilot, which attribution of role
requires evidence. However, at present, his role cannot be found
dissimilar to the aforesaid co-accused persons. The rule of consistency,
or in other words, the doctrine of parity in criminal cases, including bail
matters, encapsulates that where the incriminated and ascribed role to
the accused is one and the same as that of the co-accused then the
benefit extended to one accused should be extended to the co-accused
also on the principle that like cases should be treated alike but after
accurate evaluation and assessment of the co-offenders’ role in the
commission of the alleged offence. While applying the doctrine of parity
in bail matters, the Court is obligated to concentrate on the constituents
of the role assigned to the accused and then decide whether a case for
the grant of bail on the standard of parity or rule of consistency is made
out or no
Crl.P.35-K/24 -5-
8. In view of the above, this criminal petition is converted into an appeal
and allowed. As a consequence, thereof, the petitioner is granted bail
subject to furnishing bail bond in the sum of two hundred thousand
rupees with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial
Court. The petitioner is also directed to regularly appear before the Trial
Court, failing which, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move an
application for cancellation of bail granted to the petitioner. The
observations made above are tentative in nature and shall not prejudice
the case of either party before the Trial Court.
Judge
Judg
Comments
Post a Comment