Islamabad High Court (IHC) Grants Bail to Woman Accused of Gold Smuggling due to Procedural Failure

Islamabad 07-03-2025: In a significant ruling, the Islamabad High Court (IHC) has granted post-arrest bail to accused, a woman accused of attempting to smuggle over 2 kilograms of gold through Islamabad International Airport. The judgment has raised critical legal questions about the intent to smuggle, procedural violations by customs authorities, and the special legal protections afforded to women under Pakistani law.  

The case arose from FIR No. 03, registered by Customs Inspector on February 3, 2025. The accused was detained at the international departure hall, where customs officials allegedly found 934 grams of raw gold and 1,214 grams of jewelry in her possession. The prosecution argued that she failed to declare the gold and had no legal documentation for its transport.  

The FIR invoked Section 3(1) of the Import & Export Control Act, 1950, along with Sections 2(s), 16, and 156(1)(8)(70)(i)(e) of the Customs Act, 1969, which deal with smuggling offenses.   

During the hearing, defense counsel argued that:  

1. The gold was lawfully owned and declared in the accused’s income tax returns.  
2. The Customs Authorities violated Section 159 of the Customs Act, 1969, by conducting a search without allowing her to present supporting documents.  
3. The accused had not reached the international departure area or received a boarding pass, meaning there was no conclusive proof of smuggling intent.  
4. The FIR was lodged with an unexplained delay of 12 hours, raising questions about its legitimacy.  
5. Under Section 497(1) CrPC, bail should be granted to women unless there are exceptional circumstances, which were not present in this case.  

In its detailed order, the Islamabad High Court (IHC) questioned whether mere possession of gold beyond the permissible limit automatically qualifies as smuggling. Mr. Justice Khadim Hussain Soomro emphasized that:  

1. The accused had not yet crossed immigration or obtained an exit stamp on her passport.  
2. The lack of baggage tag or flight booking in her name made it unclear if she intended to transport the gold unlawfully.   
3. Even if initial intent to smuggle existed, the accused still had the opportunity to voluntarily offload excess gold, which does not amount to a completed offense.  

The Court criticized the customs authorities for failing to properly assess the value of the recovered gold. Despite estimating the worth at Rs. 48.1 million, the Investigation Officer failed to document any valuation method in accordance with X-ray Fluorescence (XRF) analysis or hallmarking techniques.  

The Court relied on several Supreme Court judgments to justify bail under Section 497(1) and 497(2) CrPC, including:  

1. Tahira Batul Vs. The State (PLD 2022 764): Emphasizing that procedural violations weaken the prosecution’s case.  
2. Asiya Vs. The State (2023 SCMR 383): Holding that bail should be granted if there is no clear evidence of smuggling intent.  
3. Ghazala Vs. The State (2023 SCMR 887): Stating that cases requiring further inquiry justify bail under Section 497(2) CrPC.  
4. Munawar Bibi Vs. The State (2023 SCMR 1729): Affirming that bail for women should generally be granted unless exceptional circumstances exist.  

In its final ruling, the Court granted post-arrest bail to accused against a surety bond of Rs. 1 million, directing her to appear before the Trial Court as required.

Powered by Froala Editor