'HASNAT AHMAD KHAN, J.---Through this application Akhtar Zaman Khan, an accused of case F.I.R.
No,4/2007 dated 17-7-2007, registered with Investigation and Prosecution Branch, Directorate General Intelligence and Investigation (Customs and Excise), Gujranwala, in respect of offences under sections 3, 6, 7, 8, 8-A, 14, 22, 23, 26, 34, 36, 36(i), 38 and 33(1)(5)(12)(13)(18) of the Sales Tax Act, 1990, seeks post-arrest bail.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner has been suffering pre-trial punishment since 19-7-2007; that none of the offences allegedly committed by the petitioners falls within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. And that in a similar ease the petitioner has already been allowed bail.
3. Conversely, learned Legal Advisors for Sales Tax Department, have opposed the bail application strenuously, on the 'ground that the petitioner is guilty of causing huge loss to the public exchequer, therefore, he is not entitled to the concession of post-arrest bail, despite the fact that the offences allegedly committed by him do not fall within the prohibitory clause.
4. After hearing the respective learned counsel for the parties and going through the relevant record appended with this petition, I have gathered that none of the offences allegedly committed by the petitioner falls within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. In such-like cases, granted of bail is a rule while refusal thereof is an exception to the said rule. Out of the maximum sentence of 5 years of punishment provided for the offences punishable under sections 33(12) and 33(13) of Sales Tax Act, 1990, the petitioner has already suffered around 18 months as under trial prisoner.
Therefore, the petitioner cannot be denied bail only on the ground that he has caused huge loss to the public exchequer. Besides, the A petitioner has already been granted bail in case F.I.R. F.I.R.
No,6/2007, dated 19-7-2007, registered with same police station in respect of the same offences.
Learned Legal Advisors for the Sales Tax Department have failed to point out any distinctive feature disentitling the petitioner from getting the same relief.
5. Consequently, while relying on the case of Tariq Bashir and 5 others v. The State PLD 1995 SC 34, I am inclined to grant the concession of post-arrest bail to the petitioner but, of course, subject to his furnishing bail bonds in a sum of Rs,5,00,000 rupees five hundred thousand with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court.