THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH AT KARACHI

 

Cr. Bail Applications No.880/2016 & 371/2017

 

Applicants                 :           Jan Muhammad, Muhammad Yaqoob &

Khan Muhammad through Mr. Mehmood-ul-Hassan, Advocate

 

Respondent              :            The State through Mr. Muhammad Aslam Bhutta, Asstt. Atty. Gen.

 

Date of hearing         :           22.6.2018

 

Date of Order            :           22.6.2018

 

 

ORDER

 

 

Abdul Maalik Gaddi, J:    By this common order, I intend to dispose of the above captioned bail applications, as they arise out of same FIR. Through these bail applications, applicants/ accused seek pre-arrest bails in Crime No.113/2016 registered under Section 17(2)(b), 18(a) Emigration Ordinance, 1979 read with Section 6(1)(g)(h) Passport Act, 1974 at P.S FIA, AHT Circle, Karachi. Applicants/ accused are present on bail granted to them by this Court vide Orders dated 22.6.2016 and 22.3.2017 respectively. Today these bail applications are fixed for confirmation or otherwise.

2.                 Brief facts of the case are that on 07.4.2016 a credible information was received by complainant to the effect that notorious agents Khan Muhammad along with his partner Muhammad Ayub without having Licence from the competent authority, indulged in illegal business of sending the intending emigrants to abroad by arranging forged documents at the place viz. Flat# 406/B, 4th Floor, Annum Classic, Shahrah-e-Faisal, Karachi. Accordingly, with the prior permission of the competent authority ASI Sheikh Suhail Mehmood along with SI Ameer Akbar Khan reached at the pointed place in Official vehicle, where two persons were found available in the office, their names were Muhammad Ayub and Saadat Khan, arrested them and recovered from them number of passports as mentioned in the FIR, whereas present applicants/ accused run away from the spot.

3.                 Learned counsel for applicants contended that the applicants/ accused are innocent and have been falsely implicated in this case by the complainant with malafide intention and ulterior motives; that complainant at the first instance confiscated dozen of passports from the office of the applicants, however, later on same were returned being valid passports; that co-accused Muhammad Ayub and Saadat Khan, who were arrested at the spot by the complainant have been acquitted by this Court in Criminal Appeal No.237/2017 and the case of present applicants is on better footings then those who have been acquitted by this Court; that the punishment of alleged offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 CrPC, as the same is punishable for three years sentence or fine; that applicants/ accused are appearing before the trial court without any substantial progress in the case. Therefore, under these circumstances, learned counsel for applicants has prayed for confirmation of bail applications.

4.                 Learned Asstt. Attorney General though opposed these bail applications, but he is not in a position to controvert the above legal and factual position of the case.

5.                 Heard the parties’ advocates and perused the record.

6.                 The allegations against applicants/ accused are that these applicants are involved in sending the innocent persons to abroad without prior permission of the competent authority, but on perusal of record, it appears that nothing was recovered from the applicants/ accused. It is argued by learned counsel for applicants that co-accused Muhammad Ayub and Saadat Khan, who were arrested at spot, have already been acquitted by this Court in Criminal Appeal No.237/2017 and the case of the applicants/ accused is on better footings then those who have been acquitted by this Court. From the perusal of record, it also appears that these applicants/ accused though allegedly involved in this case, but nothing was recovered from them and it is yet to be determined at the time of trial whether these applicants/ accused have committed offence as stated/ narrated in the FIR or otherwise, till then the case of applicants requires further probe; that the punishment of the offences as shown in the FIR also do not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 CrPC. Nothing on record that the present applicants/ accused are previously convicted in such like cases or they have ever been indulged in such type of activities in past. Learned counsel for applicants/ accused pointed out that these applicants/ accused are also appearing before the trial Court regularly and they did not jump the bail bond. When all these legal and factual position were confronted to learned Asstt. Atty. General, he was not able to answer properly. Since the applicants/ accused are appearing before the trial Court, therefore, in view of what I have observed above that the applicants/ accused have made out a case for their confirmation of bail. I, accordingly, confirm the interim bail already extended to applicants on same terms and conditions with direction to them to appear before the trial Court to face the trial.     

7.                 Needless to mention here that the observation, if any, made in this order is tentative in nature and shall not effect the merits of the case. It is made clear that in case if the applicants/ accused misuses the bail during proceedings before the trial Court, the trial Court would be competent to cancel the bail of the applicants/ accused after due notice and hearing to them. Since the matter pertains to 2016, therefore, trial Court is directed to proceed the matter expeditiously and decide the same preferably within the period of six months with further direction not to grant any unnecessary adjournment to either side. Compliance report be submitted to this Court through MIT-II.

8.                 In view of the above, these bail applications are allowed in above terms.

  JUDGE

 

 

asim/pa