' Since both these bail applications have arisen out of the same crime, they are being disposed of by a consolidated order.
2. It is alleged that Messrs Lakhani & Co. Owners of the Diplomatic Bonded Warehouse, used fake/forged exemption certificates of different foreign Embassies in getting the liquor cleared during the period from 11-12-1991 to 28-5-1992, thereby causing loss to State Exchequer. Applicant Muhammad Ibrahim (Special Criminal Bail Application No,47 of 1992), who is an officer of Customs, and applicant Hafeezur Rahman (Special Criminal Bail Application No,48 of 1992), who is a clerk of Grade-II, applied for bail before learned link Judge, but without success. It is in these circumstances that they have filed the present bail application before this Court.
3. I have heard Mr. Sohail Muzaffar, learned counsel for applicant Muhammad Ibrahim (Special Criminal Bail Application No,47 of 1992), Mr. Abul Khair, learned counsel for applicant Hafeezur Rehman (Special Criminal Bail Application No,48 of 1992) and Mr. Fariduddin Ahmad, learned counsel for State, who has appeared only in Special Criminal Bail Application No,47 of 1992.
4. The learned counsel for applicants have placed reliance upon the case of Irshad and another v.
The State, reported in 1989 P Cr. L J 828, in an attempt to show that the offence against the applicants, if any, is covered by clause (10-A) of section 156(1) of the Customs Act, 1969, which is bailable in nature. My attention in particular is invited to the following observations made in the above case:-- "He has also invited my attention to the provisions of clause (10-A) of section 156(1) of the Customs Act, 1969, which is relevant in this case and reads as follows:-- ' 156(1)(10-A).-- If any condition, limitation or restriction imposed by the Federal Government or by the Board for grant of partial or total exemption from customs duties is violated in respect of the goods on which exemption has been granted, such goods shall be liable to confiscation; and the person to whom the exemption was granted shall be liable to penalty not exceeding the ten times the value of the goods and upon conviction by a Special Judge he shall further be liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two yeaRs,'
' A bare reading of this clause would show that a special provision has been made in respect of a bonded warehouse, which is meant for goods stocked for sale to diplomats and privileged persons free of duty and taxes. If sight is not lost of other relative provisions in this connection including clause (59) of section 156(1) of the Customs Act, 1969, the contention raised on behalf of the applicants appears to be attractive. The offence under section 156(1)(10-A) of the Customs Act, 1969, is again bailable."
5. It is also contended on behalf of the applicants that the F.I.R. In which the present applicants were arrested is originated from a report lodged by F.I.A., whose officers had in fact detected the case and arrested the owners of the Bond, who were subsequently released on hail. Mr. Sohail Muzaffar, learned counsel for one of the applicants has placed on record the copy of the order dated 27-7-1992 passed by learned Special Judge (Customs and Taxation), Karachi, by which bail was granted to accused Aijaz Ahmad Khan and Hamid Mehmood.
6. Even otherwise the offence with which the applicants arc charged does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. The grant of bail in such a case is a rule while its refusal should be an exception. Nothing is brought on record to make it a case of exceptional nature. In fact the names of both these applicants were not disclosed in the F.I.R.
7. Having regard to the above factual and legal position, I am of the view that both the applicants are entitled to the grant of bail. Accordingly, bail is allowed to them in the sum of Rs,1,00,000 (Rs, one lac) each with P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.