UMAR ATA BANDIAL, J. -- This petition has been filed by the State for the cancellation of bail after arrest allowed to respondent by the Islamabad High Court vide its order dated 4.11.2015. The respondent is accused in case F.I.R. No, 8, dated 10.9.2015 for offences under Sections 37-A and 37-B of Sales Tax Act, 1990, registered by Director-General, Intelligence and Investigation Inland Revenue, Islamabad.
2. This petition is time-barred by 40 days. It has also been noted by us that punishment for offences mentioned in F.I.R. is three years and five years, respectively which falls outside the prohibitory clause. In such-like cases the refusal of bail is an exception. The learned counsel has emphasized that allegations against the respondent are serious in nature as he has caused colossal loss to public excheruer. He places reliance on Imtiaz Ahmed and another v. The State (PLD 1997 SC 545). Learned counsel has also raised objections to certain observations made in the impugned judgment by the learned High Court with respect to the merit of the case.
3. It goes without saying that the observations made in the impugned order by the learned High Court while granting bail to the petitioner are tentative in nature and would not affect the trial to be concluded by a learned Trial Court. The considerations governing the cancellation of bail are different from the ones for granting such relief. The impugned bail granting order has considered the prosecution material to arrive at its conclusion. Merely another opinion in the matter is not a ground for cancellation of bail.
4. For the foregoing discussion, we are not inclined to grant the relief as prayed for in this petition, as such the same is dismissed and leave is refused.