AFTAB AHMED GORAR, J.----Having failed to get the concession of bail from the learned lower fora i.e. learned Special Judge of Customs, Taxation and Anti-Smuggling Court vide its order dated 20.08.2021 passed in Case No. 109 of 2021 arising out of FIR No.09/2021 dated 20.02.2021 model Customs Court (Appraisement and Facilitation) West, Customs House, Karachi pertaining to violation of Sections 32, 32A, 97, 111, 115, 116 of the Customs Act, 1969 punishable under clauses (14), (14A), 58, 59, 60, 61 and 62 of section 156(1) ibid read with sections 33 and 34 of Sales Tax Act, further read with section 148 of Income Tax Ordinance 2001 and other allied laws, the applicant namely Umair Yousuf son of Haji Yousuf, has now filed the instant application for his release on bail in case.
2. Crux of variegated history of the prosecution case is that the applicant being a owner of M/s Hecotex Public Bonded Warehouse, illegally removed the goods lying in the warehouse for gaining illegal/wrongful benefit, caused wrongful loss to Government Exchequer.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant undercover of statement files statement under section 164, Cr.P.C., of PW Muhammad Atlas and copy of Show Cause Notice issued to applicant, which are taken on the record. Learned counsel for the applicant inter alia contended that the applicant is victim of circumstances and has falsely been implicated in this case with mala fide intention and ulterior motives. He further contended that no specific role in commission of alleged offence has been assigned against the applicant in the FIR. He added that the case of applicant is a fit case of further inquiry and it will prove at the time of evidence whether the applicant has committed any offence or not. He further contended that law leans in favour of bail rather in jail; besides for making tentative assessm ent of evidence at bail stage, deeper appreciation may not be considered as held by Hon'ble apex Court in number of cases. Learned counsel for the applicant has reiterated the facts and grounds mentioned in the memo of bail application and to support his contentions has relied upon the cases reported in 1983 SCMR 436, 1996 SCMR 1845, PLD 2009 SC 58, PLD 2018 SC 595, 1989 PCr.LJ 828, PLD 2011 Karachi 199, 2014 PCr.LJ 186, 2015 MLD 321, 1979 SCMR 9, 1980 SCMR 142, 1996 PCr.LJ 978, 2013 PCr.LJ 649, 2014 MLD 394, 2018 PCr.LJ N. 76, 2020 PCr.LJ N. 101, 2020 SCMR 285, Crl. Bail Application. No. 429 of 2021, 2018 SCMR 772, 2021 SCMR 873 and 2014 PTD 1807.
4. Learned counsel representing the Customs Department while opposing the grant of bail to the applicant submitted that applicant's name and role is appearing in the charge sheet. He pointed out that by committing the said crime the applicant has caused heavy loss to government exchequer, therefore he is not entitled for concession of bail.
5. Learned Assistant Attorney General adopted the arguments of counsel for the Customs Department.
6. Arguments heard. Record perused.
7. Admittedly, the applicant is owner of M/s Hecotex Public Bonded Warehouse and it cannot be said that he was not aware of the activities at the warehouse. The co-accused, Farhan Yousuf, who is on bail, was the Manager of said warehouse who was definitely doing work on the directions of owner of warehouse/applicant.
8. Besides above, perusal of record reveals that the goods that were illegally removed from the warehouse were cloths whereas the license to the applicant was provided for Iron and Steel products, tiles, medical items and chemicals and not for cloths. Thus, use of warehouse other than the licensed products is also the misconduct on the part of applicant. Even otherwise the loss of huge amount to the government exchequer is involved in this case which has not yet secured.
9. It is settled that for deciding the bail application the court has to observe the tentative assessm ent and deeper appreciation of evidence is not required and it will not be fair to go into discussion about the merits of the case at this juncture. In this respect reliance is being placed on the cases of Saleh Muhammad v. The State (PLD 1986 Supreme Court 211) and The State v. The Zubair and 4 others (PLD 1986 Supreme Court 163). Learned counsel for the applicant through his exhaustive and elaborate arguments wanted this Court to give its categorical and specific verdict regarding the applicant that he is not involved in the commission of offence. He placed reliance on the judgments of this Court as well as the apex Court favouring him in this regard but this Court is very much clear in its mind that no such precise verdict in such type cases can be given as every case has its own facts and circumstances. It is not out of context to mention here that sufficient material available on the record shows that loss of huge amount to government exchequer has been caused by removing the goods from the warehouse, which admittedly owned by the applicant. Since, the applicant-accused has failed to show a single mala fide on the part of complainant/ prosecution to falsely implicate him in the case and there appear no reasonable ground to believe that he was not guilty of the offence alleged against him. Thus, taking a tentative assessm ent of the available record, the applicant being prima facie linked with the commission of the offence is held disentitled to the concession of bail.
10 In view of whatever mentioned above, the applicant is not entitled for bail, more particularly, his case is not at par to the case of the co-accused Farhan Yousuf and therefore he is not entitled for concession of bail on the ground of rule of consistency as well. Resultantly, the bail application is dismissed. However, the order being tentative in nature shall not affect the merits of the case and the trial court shall not be influenced to the observation made hereinabove. The trial court is directed to expedite and conclude the trial at an earliest, preferably within a period of three months, under intimation to this court through MIT of this court.