IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT, LARKANA
Criminal Bail Appln. No. S-535 of 2024
Criminal Bail Appln. No. S-537 of 2024
|
Applicant (In Cr. Bail Appln. No. S-535/2024) |
: |
Sajid Ali Mahessar, Through Mr. Ashfaque Hussain Abro, advocate
|
|
Applicant (In Cr. Bail Appln. No. S-537/2024) |
: |
Khaliq ur Rehman Sangi, Through Mr. Noor Ahmed Lashari, advocate |
|
The State |
: |
Through Mr. Oshaq Ali Sangi, Assistant Attorney General for Pakistan a/w Mohsin Shahbaz, Sub Inspector, F.I.A Sukkur |
|
|
|
|
|
Date of hearing |
|
07-05-2025 |
|
Date of order |
|
07-05-2025 |
O R D E R
AMJAD ALI SAHITO, J.- Through single order, I dispose of captioned two bail applications, arising out of same crime bearing No.06/2024, offence U/s 3,4 AML-(Act Amended-2020) registered at Police Station F.I.A Composite Circle, Sukkur, whereby their bail plea was declined by the learned I-Additional Sessions Judge/Tribunal, Larkana vide order dated 10.09.2024.
2. The details and particulars of the FIR are already available in the bail application and FIR, same could be gathered from the copy of FIR attached with such application, hence, needs not to reproduce the same hereunder.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant/accused Sajid Ali submits that he is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case. In fact in the year 2016, he has sold out his house and deposited amount in his account and thereafter he has closed the account as such he is not involved in Anti-Money Laundering or any offence under Foreign Exchange Regulations Act. He further submits that there is no proof against the applicant/accused that he is involved in any anti-money laundering. He submits that due to enmity, he has been involved in this case, otherwise there is no allegation against him.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the applicant/accused Khaliq ur Rehman Sangi submits that infact the applicant/accused is O.T Technician and he has also family business of travel agency and so many people have deposited amounts in his account and that's why the total amount becomes rupees six crores. In support of his contention, he has also filed the account statement of U.B.L Larkana.
5. From face of F.I.R it reveals that the amount was transferred by the private persons and other persons. On inquiry, that how a private person can deposit amount in the bank. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that in fact they have deposited amounts for purchasing of e-tickets, however, no proof for such e-tickets is available on record to confirm the contention of learned counsel for the applicant.
6. On the other hand, I.O of the case is present and states that after grant of bail, the applicants were attending this court, thereafter he has requested this court to direct the accused persons to join the investigation, however, they did not submit any proof that the applicant/accused Sajid Ali Mahesar has sold out his house. I.O of the case is present in court and submits that he has written a letter to the Mukhtiarkar, Taluka Larkana about the property of accused Sajid Ali and as per his report, there are no properties in the name of both the accuse persons. He further submits that accused are very much involved in anti-money laundering, as such they are not entitled for concession of bail.
7. Learned Assistant Attorney General also submits that recovered phone of the accuse persons were sent for the forensic examination, which also confirms that both the phones were used for the purpose of anti-money laundering and such statement is available on record.
8. Heard and perused.
9. From perusal of record it reflects that the inquiry was initiated by the F.I.A. Anti-Money Laundering Cell Larkana and in respect of that inquiry, the F.I.R was registered U/s 4,5 and 23 of Foreign Exchange Regulations Act-1947 (FERA) (Amended-2020), r/w Section 34, 109 P.P.C against the applicants. During inquiry it was found that proceed has been generated from the predicted offence, alleged in the said F.I.R and resultantly, in the account of applicant Sajid Ali an amount of Rs.43,01,598/- has been found and an amount of Rs.1,615,492/- and Rupees 6,04,75,638/- have found in the account of applicant/accused Khaliq ur Rehman Sangi. After grant of bail, they joined the investigation but did not produce any proof to justify the amounts lying in their accounts. Even both the accused failed to produce annual F.B.R returns to believe that they have disclosed such amounts in their returns before registration of F.I.R. Applicant/accused Sajid Ali Mahessar is a private person, whereas accused Khaliq ur Rehman is O.T Technician, huge amount is found in their accounts and during investigation allegedly it was found that they are involved in anti-money laundering. So far pleas raised by the learned counsel for the applicants that the offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause, it is made clear that the offence in which applicants/accused are charged is punishable upto ten years. No enmity or ill will has been found against the F.I.A authorities.
10. At bail stage only tentative assessment is to be made. Further for grant of pre-arrest bail, the essential requirements are malafide and ulterior motives those are missing in this case. In this respect, I am fortified with the case law of Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan [2019 SCMR 1129], wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan has held as under:
"Grant of pre-arrest bail is an extra ordinary remedy in criminal jurisdiction; it is diversion of usual course of law, arrest in cognizable cases; a protection to the innocent being hounded on trump up charges through abuse of process of law, therefore a petitioner seeking judicial protection is required to reasonably demonstrate that intended arrest is calculated to humiliate him with taints of mala fide; it is not a substitute for post arrest bail in every run of the mill criminal case as it seriously hampers the course of investigation... the principles of judicial protection are being faithfully adhered to till date, therefore, grant of pre-arrest bail essentially requires considerations of malafide, ulterior motive or abuse of process of law."
11. In view of above discussions, the learned counsel for applicants/accused failed to make out good case for confirmation of their bail. Consequently, the bail applications are dismissed and the interim pre-arrest bail earlier granted to the applicants/accused vide orders dated 18.09.2024, is hereby re-called
12. Needless to mention here that the observations made hereinabove are tentative in nature and would not influence the learned trial court while deciding the case of either party at trial.
J U D G E