Lawyers Directory Listing
Unlock direct contact details for up to 10 lawyers so you can call or WhatsApp the right legal professional and move your matter forward with confidence.
Criminal Miscellaneous No. 61‑B of 1987, decided on 17th February, 1987.
‑‑‑S. 497‑‑Emigration Ordinance (XVIII of 1979), Ss. 17. 18 & 22‑‑ Passports Act (XX of 1974), S. 6‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.165‑A, 420, 468, 471 & 472‑‑Bail, grant ‑ of‑‑Statutory ground of delay in trial for more than one year‑‑Accused receiving money from 100 persons on pretext bf sending them abroad for employment‑‑One hundred and seventeen Passports, different stamps, visas and Bank Challans, recovered from his house on raid by F .I. A . ‑‑Except passports, rest of documents found forged‑‑Challan submitted in Court and trial having commenced‑‑Delay attributed to accused‑‑ Allegations against accused being of serious nature and he appearing to be habitual offender, accused, held, was not entitled to bail in circumstances.‑‑[Delay].
‑‑‑Ss. 265‑K‑‑Emigration Ordinance (XVIII of 1979), Ss. 17, 18 & 22‑ Passports Act (XX of 1974), S. 6‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.165‑A, 420, 468, 471 & 472‑‑Acquittal, whether maintainable‑‑Co‑accused found acquitted under S. 265‑K, Cr.P.C.‑‑No evidence recorded by Trial Court‑‑No cogent legal reasons given for acquittal‑‑Such acquittal, held, was not maintainable in law‑‑Notice to show‑cause why acquittal should not be set aside, issued suo motu.
Iqbal Ahmad for Petitioner.
M. Nawaz Abbas, Asstt. A.‑G. for the State.
Israr Ahmad son of Ghulam Nabi resident of House No. E/508, Khayaban‑e‑Sir Syed, Rawalpindi, has applied for bail.
A case under sections 17, 18, 22 of the Emigration Ordinance, 1979 read with section 420/468/471/472/165‑A, P.P.C. and section 6 of the Passport Act, 1974, was registered against him vide F.I.R. No. 51/86, dated 25‑1‑1986 at police station, F.I.A. (I&AS) Passport Cell, Islamabad.
The allegation against Israr Ahmad was that he took money from 100 persons on the pretext that they shall be sent abroad. Rs.5,05,450 were taken by him from these persons.
F.I.A. organised a raid and the petitioner was arrested from his house.
It is alleged by the prosecution that they recovered 117 passports, different stamps, visas and bank challan forms. Passports were genuine but the stamps and other documents were forged.
Israr Ahmad was taken into custody on 25‑1‑1986. He applied for bail. His bail application was dismissed by the Special Judge (Central) Rawalpindi, on 26‑3‑1986. Thereafter he moved this Court. His application (Criminal Miscellaneous No. 539‑B‑86) was dismissed on merits by order, dated 13‑12‑1986. He again applied to the Special Judge (Central) on statutory ground. That application was rejected by order, dated 27‑1‑1987. This is the second application for bail moved by the petitioner before this Court.
Counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner is behind the bars for more than one year. Hence he is entitled to the concession of bail.
Bail is opposed by the A . A . ‑G . as well as the Assistant Director, F . I . A . , who is present with record. Learned A . A . ‑G . submitted that the challan has been submitted in the Court and the trial has commenced.
The Prosecuting Inspector is also present. He submits that on three different occasions the prosecution brought evidence, but the defence counsel sought adjournment on one pretext or the other. Some time the defence counsel was not available and some time an adjournment was sought. Hence the trial could not start. The accused is responsible for the delay.
During arguments, it transpired that there are three other accused. Those are Muhammad Akhtar, Tasveer Ali and Ghulam Nabi. Tasveer Ali was admitted to interim bail by the trial Court. Thereafter he absconded. Necessary legal proceedings are being taken against him. Ghulam Nabi, who is father of the petitioner is on bail.
The Central Special Judge acquitted Muhammad Akhtar under section 265‑K, Cr.P.C. I have gone through that order. So far not a single witness has been examined. The trial Court without recording any evidence and without giving cogent legal reasons acquitted Muhammad Akhtar. His acquittal is not maintainable under the law.
I, therefore, suo motu issue notice to Muhammad Akhtar to show‑cause why his acquittal be not set aside and he be dealt with in accordance with law. Bailable warrants in the sum of Rs.50,000 (fifty thousand), returnable to the Special Judge be issued against him.
So far as the request of the petitioner for bail is concerned, I have considered the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the stance of the prosecution. The allegation against the petitioner is of serious nature. He appears to be a habitual offender. The delay in commencement of trial is taking place because of him. I don't think that he, as such, is entitled to bail.
S.A. /I‑6/L Petition dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer