AFTAB AHMED GORAR, J. By this common order, Cr. Bail Applications Nos. 39 and 40 of 2021 are taken together arising out of the FIR No. 15/2021 registered under subsection (59) of section 156(1) of the Customs Act, 1969 read with section 178 ibid registered with Police Station Customs, Karachi.
2. The applicants booked in the above crime sought bail under section 497, Cr.P.C. Earlier, by an order dated 03.07.2021 bail has been declined by the learned trial court hence the instant bail applications. As per FIR the present applicants have been involved in stealing the goods from Government Warehouse.
3. Both, Mr. Waqar Alam Abbasi, Advocate representing the applicant in Special Criminal Bail Application No. 39 of 2021 and Mr. Muhammad Hanif Samma, Advocate representing the applicant in Special Criminal Bail Application No. 40 of 2021 submitted that applicants are innocent and have falsely been implicated in this case with mala fide intention and ulterior motives; The further contended that no specific role in commission of alleged offence has been assigned against the applicants in the FIR rather their names are appearing in the charge sheet. They next contended that none of the customs officials were interrogated or nominated which shows mala fides. They contended that Investigating officer of the case has state in the interim challan that investigation in respect of present applicants is completed and they are no more required for further investigation; the case of applicants is a fit case of further inquiry and it will prove at the time of evidence whether the applicants have committed any offence or not. They further contended that law leans in favour of bail rather in jail; besides for making tentative assessment of evidence at bail stage, deeper appreciation may not be considered as held by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Suba Khan v. Muhammad Ajmal (2006 SCMR 66).
4. Learned Special Prosecutor representing the Customs Department while opposing the grant of bail to applicants submitted that applicants' names and roles are appearing in the interim charge sheet.
5. Learned Assistant Attorney General adopted arguments of counsel for the Customs Department.
6. It may not be out of context to mention here that in our country liberty of individual has been guaranteed by the Constitution beside the fact that speedy trial is inalienable right of every accused person, therefore, even if the provision of section 497, Cr.P.C. in ordinary course is not applicable, the broader principle of the same can be pressed into service in hardship cases to provide relief to a deserving accused person incarcerated in jail for indefinite period. The concept of bail has elaborately been dilated upon by the Indian Supreme Court in the case titled as Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of Investigation (AIR 2012 SC 830), which reads in the following words:- "In bail applications, generally, it has been laid down from the earliest times that the object of bail is to secure the appearance of the accused person at his trial by reasonable amount of bail. The object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative. Deprivation of Liberty must be considered a punishment, unless it can be required to ensure that an accused person will stand his trial when called upon. The Courts owe more than verbal respect to the principle that punishment begins after conviction, and that every man is deemed to be innocent until duly tried and duly found guilty. From the earliest times, it was appreciated that detention in custody pending completion of trial could be a cause of great hardship. From time to time, necessity demands that some unconvicted person should be held in custody pending trial to secure, their attendance at the trial but in such case, necessity is the operative test. In this country, it would be quite contrary to the concept of personal Liberty enshrined in the Constitution that any person should be punished in respect of any matter, upon which, he has not been convicted or that in any circumstances, he should be deprived of his liberty upon only the belief that he will temper with the witnesses if left at liberty, save in the most extraordinary circumstances. Apart from the question of prevention being the object of a refusal of a bail, one must not lose sight of the fact that any imprisonment before conviction has a substantial punitive content and it would be improper for any Court to refuse bail as a mark of disapproval of former conduct whether the accused has been convicted for it or not or to refuse bail to an unconvicted person for the purpose of giving him a taste of imprisonment as a Lesson."
7. The concept of bail in the same judgment has further been elaborated in the following words: "In the present case, the charge is that of cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property, forgery for the purpose of cheating using as genuine a forged document. The punishment of the offence is punishment for a term which may extend to seven years. It is, no doubt, true that the nature of the charge may be relevant, but at the same time, the punishment to which the party may be liable, if convicted, also bears upon the issue. Therefore, in determining whether to grant bail, both the seriousness of the charge and the severity of the punishment should be taken into consideration. The grant or refusal to grant bail lies within 'the discretion of the Court. The grant or denial is regulated, to a large extent, by the facts and circumstances of each particular case. But at the same time, right to bail is not to be denied merely because of the sentiments of the community against the accused. The primary purposes of bail in a criminal case are to relieve the accused of imprisonment, to relieve the State of the burden of keeping him, pending the trial and at the same time, to keep the accused constructively in the custody of the Court, whether before or after conviction, to assure that he will submit to the jurisdiction of the Court and be in attendance thereon whenever his presence is required."
8. It is settled that bail in case does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. is to be granted as a rule and refusal is an exception as held in the cases of Ghulam Abbas v. State (2006 PCr.LJ 413), Tahir Mehmood v. The State (2007 PCr.LJ 112)and so also in the landmark judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Tariq Bashir v. The State (PLD 1995 SC 34).
9. Admittedly the names of applicants are not appearing in the FIR and their names are only mentioned in interim charge sheet; the investigation against the present applicants is completed and they are no more required for further investigation. No exceptional circumstances appear in these cases to withhold bail of the applicants at this stage. I am of the view that to curtail the liberty of a person is a serious step in law. Admittedly, the applicants are not previous convict; therefore, no useful purpose would be served by sending the applicants behind the bars.
10. After hearing both the sides and after going through the relevant record and provisions of law, I reached at the irresistible conclusion that the applicants have succeeded to establish the grant of bail in view peculiar facts and circumstances of the instant case. Accordingly, the applicants are admitted to bail subject to their furnishing surety in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lac only) each and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial court.
11. Before parting with the order, it needs not to make clarification that the observations recorded above are tentative in nature and relevant for the purpose of these bail applications, therefore, the trial court shall not be influenced in any manner whatsoever. Captioned bail applications are disposed of in the above terms.