' ATHAR MINALLAH, J. The petitioner Muhammad Nadeem son of Mian Abdul Ali has sought post arrest bail in case, F.I.R. No. 14, dated 25-04-2015, registered under Sections 2(s), 156(1)(8)(70), 157, 178 of the Customs Act, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") at Police Station l&P, MCC, Islamabad.
2. Brief facts as narrated in the FIR are that the accused was apprehended by the Customs Officials at Benazir Bhutto International Airport, Islamabad while he was allegedly passing through green channel. Pursuant to carrying out search of his baggage, 170 mobile phones were recovered with accessory packing. The value of seized goods was assessed as approximately Rs. 28,50,000/-, hence this FIR.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that; the petitioner is innocent and has been implicated with male fide intention; that the instant case is false, frivolous and baseless; the story as narrated in the FIR is concocted; the petitioner has not committed any offence; there is no direct or indirect evidence against the petitioner; the prosecution has no CCTV footage of the petitioner as he had never passed through the green channel; the petitioner had approached the Customs Officials at the counter for declaring the goods but he was male fidely arrested; the formalities as prescribed under Sections 139 and 159 of the Customs Act, 1969 were not fulfilled; the offences mentioned in the FIR are not attracted against the petitioner; the investigation against the petitioner has been completed and there is no possibility of abscondance of the petitioner; the petitioner has been incarcerated since more than a month; the petitioner has no criminal record; no case is registered against him other than the present case; the case against the petitioner is of further inquiry; hence the learned counsel urges the petitioner to be released on bail. Reliance has been placed on the cases "Shehzore and another v. The State" [2006 YLR 3167], "Abdul Sa/am v. The State" [1984 P.Cr.L.J. 1133], "Muhammad Tahir v. The State" [1991 P.Cr.L.J. 644] and "Mumtazuddin v.
The State" [PLD 2015 Sindh 183].
4. On the other hand, the learned Standing. Counsel assisted by the learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 and Mr. M. Yousaf Mughal, I.O. (Customs) contended that; the petitioner is fully involved in the case; the accused petitioner was apprehended red handed while he was passing through the green channel at airport; 170 mobile phone sets alongwith accessory packing were recovered from him; the offence falls within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Cr.P.C.; the petitioner did not produce any statement regarding recovery; reliance has been placed on the case "Ali Muhammad & others v. The State" [NLR 1991 SCJ 592]. The I.O. Present in the Court, however, admitted that the prosecution has not examined or obtained the CCTV footage to corroborate the version that the petitioner was passing through the green channel. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the instant bail petition.
5. The learned counsels have been heard and record perused with their able assistance.
6. In the instant case the recovery is admitted. According to the prosecution the accused petitioner was apprehended while passing through the green channel at Benazir Bhutto International Airport; whereas the stance of the accused petitioner is otherwise. The investigating officer has candidly admitted that the CCTV footage has neither been examined nor obtained despite the fact that the same is available. Whether the petitioner was passing through the green channel or had approached the customs officials for declaration requires further probe. There is force in the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that when alternate sentence has been provided then lesser sentence should be considered by the Court at the bail stage. The reliance placed on the cases "Arshad Mehmood v. The State" [1985 P.Cr.L.J. 2048] and "Muhammad Akhtar v.
The State" [1994 P.Cr.L.J. 2340] is not misplaced. The investigations, qua the petitioner are complete.
Keeping the petitioner incarcerated in the present will not serve Any beneficial purpose. The petitioner has no criminal history nor has frequently travelled abroad. This Court is, therefore, of the, opinion that the petitioner is entitled to be released on bail.
7. In the circumstances as mentioned above, this petition is allowed and the petitioner is admitted to bail, subject to furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 100,000/-(Rupees One Hundred Thousand) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned Trial Court.
' Needless to mention that this ,is tentative assessment, which shall not affect trial of this case in any manner.