Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
Criminal Bail Application No. 10 of 1969, decided on 20th January 1969.
S. 498‑‑‑Bail‑Accused charged for offences under Ss. 167 (81), (8a) & 212, Sea Customs Act (VIII of 1878)‑Such offences though serious not punishable with death or transportation for life‑Accused in pursuance of general policy allowed bail.
Haji Wali Muhammad v. The State 1968 P Cr. L J 192 fol.
Muzaffar Hassan for Petitioners.
Manzoor Hassain for the State.
The petitioners are charged for offences under sections 167 (81a) (8) and 212 of the Sea Customs Act. The offences for which the petitioners are charged, are not punishable with death or transportation for life, and therefore, the general rule‑ of allowing bail to the petitioners as against disallowing it must prevail, unless some substantial reason is furnished by the prosecution against allowing bail.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioners argued that a launch was allegedly sighted on 15‑10‑68, discharging in a boat certain contraband goods comprising gold, watches and other articles, which were actually seized, but surprisingly enough no F. I. R. was lodged with the police. The custom authorities allegedly gave a chase to the launch and on 17‑10‑68, at about 6 a.m. in the Sea between Jiwani and Gwadar about 250 miles from Karachi shore, the launch namely Alsukhiyah was inter cepted and. the 9 petitioners who are allegedly the crews of the launch were arrested.
3. I need not, in the instant case, go deeply into the evidence, which the prosecution might lead in the case, but for the purposes of allowing bail, it may be stated that both the offences, of which the petitioners are charged, are not punishable with death or transportation, and therefore, the petitioners, in A pursuance of the general policy of granting bail, should be allowed bail. I was informed by the learned counsel for the, State that the five petitioners, namely, Hussain, son of Essa, Muhammad, son of Umar, Umar son of Adam, Ismail son of Ibrahim and Siddiq, son of Zikr, are Indian Nationalists and there is every liklihood of their absconding. The Supreme Court in a recent case reported in Haji Wali Muhammad v. The State (1968 P Cr. L J 192), had to decide the question of bail for offences under the custom laws in which huge quantity of gold was involved. Cornelius, C. J., speaking for the Supreme Court, held that:
"Argument that general grounds of seriousness of the menace of smuggling, etc. should not be allowed to prevail against general rule that a person charged with offence not involving sentence of death or transportation for life should, unless there are strong grounds for belief in his guilt, be allowed bail",
was not without force. The case before me is covered by the decision of the Supreme Court, referred to above. I accordingly allow bail to the petitioners, other than the five petitioners, e who are stated to be Indian Nationalists, in the sum of Rs. 7,000 with one surety in the like amount each to the satisfaction of the trial Magistrate.
4. As regards the five petitioners (Indian Nationalists) I direct that the learned Magistrate trying the case should first satisfy himself on the point, whether they are actually Indian Nationalists, and in case they were found to be such then he may require them to furnish bail bond in the sum of Rs. 7,000 with two sureties, in the like amount. The Magistrate is always expected to satisfy himself before accepting surety bonds about the insolvency of the sureties.
Order accordingly.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer