IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH AT KARACHI

Criminal Bail Application No. 732 of 2018

Shaikh Gohar Ali……………..…………………...…………………..Applicant

Versus

The State……………………………….…………..……………….Respondent

Date of Hearing & Short Order : 05.09.2018

Mr. Muhammad Nasim Shad, advocate for applicant

Mr. Muhammad Javed KK, Assistant Attorney General

O R D E R

Fahim Ahmed Siddiqui, J: The applicant is facing trial before the Court of Special Judge (Central-II), Karachi in Crime No. 89/2014 under Section 22(B) of E.O. 1979 registered by FIA AHT Circle, Karachi.

2. I have heard the arguments advanced from either side and perused record produced before me. After getting enlightened from the valued submissions made at bar and scanning the record, I have observed as under:

(a) The allegations against the applicant is that although he is not an authorized overseas employment promoter but he was running an office in the year 2012 in the name and style of M/S Mustaf Hijrat (Pvt) Ltd., in E-2, Anum Classic, Mezzanine Floor, Shahra-e-Faisal Karachi. On the pretext of sending complainant Sohail to abroad for employment and settlement in Scotland under the grab of study visa, he demanded and received Rs. 460,000/- from him (complainant) on different occasions through banking transactions. However, he neither sent him to the above destination nor returned his money. In the same way, he has taken different amount from other persons including Ihasan Ali, Imran, Muhammad Haneef and Basheer Ahmed etc.

(b) The allegations against the applicant are serious in nature and in absence of any license as ‘Overseas Employment Promoter’, his action for contacting people to go abroad may be termed as ‘human trafficking.

(c) During investigation, it was come on the record that the applicant lured the innocent persons for getting job and settling abroad and has taken considerable amount from them through banking channel.

(d) Nowadays, it is common that the person like accused, after luring the targeted persons, by fantasizing them about their so-called bright future in different countries, exploit not only them but also their family members and taking huge amount from them, which in many cases culminated in tragedies.

(e) Apparently, there is no animosity of the complainant or police with the applicant besides no such plea is raised on behalf of the applicant. In such a situation, there exists no reason for files involvement of the applicant in such a heinous offence.

(f) I am of the view that the applicant has acted malaciously and caused serious injuries to the complainant and other aggrieved persons, as such he is not entitled for any relief at least at this stage.

2. In view of the above observation, I am of the view that the applicant is not entitled for bail at least at this stage. However, trial Court is directed to pace-up the trial and dispose of the same within shortest possible time preferably within three months failing which the applicant will be at liberty to repeat bail application before the trial court.

3. The above are the reasons for the short order dated 05-09-2018 whereby bail of the applicant was declined.

J U D G E