Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: MUHAMMAD ASIF VS Respondent: StateHonorable Justice Mian Muhammad Najam-uz-ZamanMian Muhammad Rafi Mughal,Muhammad Jahangir Wahlah
2007 Y L R 3026
2007 Y L R 3026
[Lahore]
Before Mian Muhammad Najam-uz-Zaman, J
MUHAMMAD ASIF---Petitioner
Versus
THE STATE---Respondent
Criminal Miscellaneous No. 7112-B of 2005, decided on 27th October, 2005.
(a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---
----S.497--Emigration Ordinance (XVIII of 1979), Ss.17/22---Prevention and Control of Human Trafficking Ordinance (LIX of 2002), Ss.3/4---Bail, grant of---Accused, according to F.I.R. had never received any amount from the deportees on the pretext of sending them abroad for employment and provisions of S.22 of the Emigration Ordinance, 1979, thus were not attracted---Evidence available on record also did not show the involvement of accused under Ss.3/4 of the Prevention and Control of Human Trafficking Ordinance, 2002---Circumstances found on record, no doubt, prima facie, attracted the provisions of 5.17 of the Emigration Ordinance, 1979, qua the accused because he had immigrated from. Pakistan without lawful Authority and was taken into custody by foreign authorities, but the offence being punishable with five years' R.I. did not fall within the prohibitory clause of S. 497(1), Cr. P. C. and grant of bail in such-like cases was a rule and refusal an exception---Accused was admitted to bail in circumstances.
(b) Criminal .Procedure Code (V of 1898)---
----S.497---Bail---Cases not falling within the prohibitory clause of S.497, Cr.P.C.---Principles---Grant of bail in cases not hit by the prohibition contained in S.497(1), Cr. P. C. is a rule and refusal of bail is an exception.
Mian Muhammad Rafi Mughal for the Petitioner.
Muhammad Jahangir Wahlah, Standing Counsel.
Ahmar Naeem Sindhu, S.I. F.I.A.
ORDER
MIAN MUHAMMAD NAJAM- UZ-ZAMAN, J.---Seeks post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.338/2005 dated 9-8-2005 for the offence under sections 17/22 of E.O., 1979 read with sections 314 of Prevention and Control of Human Trafficking Ordinance, 2002, registered at Police Station FIA, Gujranwala.
2. The said F.I.R. was registered upon the information conveyed by certain deportees who were going to Greece. They were arrested by Turks Authorities and deported to Iran, where they were taken into custody by Iranian Kurds who kept them in their confinement for ten days. Statedly petitioner was also in confinement of said Kurds who could speak Persian and had acted as an interpreter between the deportees and said Kurds, Allegedly petitioner had joined hands with the said Kurds and upon their asking directed the deportees to pay 400 US dollars each to said Kurds for their release and that payment could be made by them to his brother namely Muhammad Arif at Gujranwala (Pakistan). Statedly, on the said assurance deportees made arrangement for the payment of amount to Muhammad Arif at Gujranwala (Pakistan) and upon receiving the call from Muhammad Arif deportees and petitioner were released' but they were again taken into custody by the Iranian Authorities and thereafter handed over to F.C. Force Balochistan in Pakistan.
Bail application of the petitioner was dismissed by Special Judge (Central), Lahore vide order dated 16-9-2005, hence this petition.
3. Bare perusal of the F.I.R. reveals that petitioner never received any amount from the deportees on the pretext of sending them abroad for employment, thus provisions of section 22 of Emigration Ordinance, 1979 are not attracted in the circumstances of this case. Similarly the evidence available on the record is silent qua the petitioner to say that he has the involvement for the offence of human trafficking falling within the ambit of section 3/4 of the Prevention and Control of 'Human Trafficking Ordinance, 2002. As far as offence under section 17 of the Emigration Ordinance, 1979 is concerned, no doubt prima facie circumstances available on record attract the provisions of this section qua the petitioner because he immigrated from Pakistan without lawful authority and was taken him custody by Iranian Kurds and thereafter Iranian authorities but this offence is punishable with five years' R.I, which does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497 Cr.P.C. Grant of bail in such like cases is a rule and refusal is an exception.
Accordingly this petition is allowed and petitioner is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds amounting to Rs,50,000 (rupees fifty thousand), with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of D.R. (Judicial) of this Bench.
N.H.Q./M-23/L Bail allowed.