' FAZAL-I-HAQ ABBASI, J.---Muhammad Suhail son of Muhammad Suleman petitioner is in custody in case F.I.R. No,40 dated 8-4-2010 under sections 18, 32, 32-A, 79, 80, 157, 178 and 202-A, 156(a), (9), (14), (14-A), (43), (82) and (90) of the Customs Act, 1969 read with clause 31 of CGO No,12 of 2002 registered at Police Station I and P Branch, Customs House Peshawar.
2. Petitioner seeks bail on the ground that he has been detained for a continuous period exceeding one year in the above cited case and the trial has not concluded so far.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the accused petitioner is behind the bars for the last more than one year and trial has not concluded so far without any act or omission on the part of the accused or any other person acting on his behalf, as such deserves concession of bail.
Placed reliance on Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act-VIII of 2011 and on an unreported judgment of the august Supreme Court in Criminal Petitions Nos.556-L, 592-L to 605-L of 2010.
4. On the other hand, learned Deputy Attorney-General appearing on behalf of the State opposed the grant of bail and argued that there are a number of Customs officials, Frontier Constabulary employees and other persons involved in the present case and that a huge loss in terms of Crores of Rupees has been caused to the National Exchequer by the accused-petitioner in connivance with his co-accused by unloading 49 Containers on the way to Afghanistan without payment of Government Taxes and Duties. He further argued that the delay has occurred due to moving of the bail applications by the accused. He further submitted that the investigation is complete, challan has been submitted in the Court and the trial is to commence shortly.
5. 1 have heard the arguments and perused the record.
6. Muhammad Suhail accused-petitioner moved first bail application before the trial Court on 16- 6-2010, which was rejected on 23-6-2010. Then he moved bail application before this Court on 26- 6-2010 and the same was rejected on merits on 19-7-2010. He again moved bail application before the trial Court on 12-8-2010 and the same was rejected on 6-9-2010. He again moved bail application before this Court on 18-9-2010 and the same was rejected vide order dated 12-11-2010.
He again moved bail application before the trial Court on the ground of delay in conclusion of the trial, which was rejected vide order dated 28-6-2011. Feeling aggrieved of order dated 28-6-2011 passed by Special Judge Customs, Taxation and Anti-Smuggling, K.P.K. Peshawar, he has now again moved the instant bail application before this Court on the ground of delay in conclusion of trial.
7. As regards Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act VIII, 2011 the same is reproduced below:-- "497. When bail may be taken in cases of non-bailable offence (I)--------------- Provided-------------- Provided further---------------------------------------------------------------- Provided further that the Court shall except where it is of the opinion that the delay in the trial of the accused by an act or omission of the accused or any other person on his behalf direct that any person shall be released on bail
(a) who, being accused of any offence not punishable with death has been detained for a continuous period exceeding one year or in case of a woman exceeding 6 months and whose trial for such offence has not concluded, or (b)
8. In order to avail the concession of third proviso to section 497(1), Cr.P.C. The accused has also to satisfy the court that the delay has not occasioned by an act or omission of the accused or any other person acting on his behalf. Accused Muhammad Suhail moved repeated bail applications before the trial Court as well as before this Court and consumed sufficient time in such process. He appears to be more anxious for his release on bail than conclusion of the trial.
9. As far the judgment of the august Supreme Court in Criminal Petitions Nos.556-L, 592-L to 605-L of 2010 is concerned, said case is distinguishable on the ground that the accused in that case was in Jail for more than 2-1/2 years and more time was required to conclude the investigation.
10. Thus keeping in view the above facts and circumstances this bail application being without any force, is dismissed. However, the trial Court is directed to conclude the trial of the accused within four months of receipt of the case file. Office is directed to send the case file forthwith to the trial Court, without any delay.