1985 P Cr (PLP)

"During investigation raid was conducted on the house of applicant Mushtaq from where 60 forged Aqamas and other forged stamps were secured under Mashirnama. On the same day raid was conducted on the house of applicant Imtiaz and 40 forged Aqamas and other such incriminating articles were secured under Mashirnama. Then on 21‑2‑1985 raid was conducted and 20 printing blocks for preparing forged Aqamas were recovered from the Printing Press of applicant Iqbal Hussain. Then the investigation revealed that the applicant Ayoub had helped applicants Mushtaq and Imtiaz in getting prepared forged Aqamas." As for the applicant Shahbaz Ali, in course of the search of his shop 6 forged 'Aqamas' and other incriminating articles were recovered, The arguments addressed at the Bar may be summarized as under: (1) The case of the applicants does not fall within the prohibitions contained in section 497, Cr.P.C. and, therefore, they are entitled to bail as a matter of routine. In this connection reliance has been placed on Mohammad Akhtar v. The State 1984 P Cr. L J 2340. (2) Co‑accused Ayoub has been admitted to bail by this Court. (3) The applicants not being in conscious possession of the articles allegedly recovered from them cannot be held liable for the same. (4) The applicants have derived no benefit from possession of the incriminating articles, monetary or otherwise. (5) The applicants are not shown to have forged or attempted to forge the 'Aqamas' allegedly recovered from them. (6) The recovery of incriminating articles having been made in absence of some of the applicants, such recovery creates no liability on the part of absentee applicants. (7) In case of applicant Shahbaz, the date of recovery (26‑2‑1985) being different from that of his arrest (27‑2‑1985) the recovery is doubtful. As disclosed in the evidence relied upon by the prosecution, beside recovery of other incriminating articles from all the applicants, 6 forged 'Aqamas' from applicant Shahbaz, 40 forged 'Aqamas' from applicant Imtiaz and 60 forged 'Aqamas' from applicant Mushtaq Khan have been secured. According to the learned Assistant Advocate‑General, all the 'Aqamas' secured from the applicants were forwarded to the relevant authorities of Saudi Mission in Pakistan for verification and the reply received from the said authorities showed that none of the 'Aqamas' involved in the case had been issued by the Saudi Mission. Thus, there is prima facie evidence that 'Aqamas' secured from possession of the above three applicants were forged. So far applicant Iqbal is concerned, the prosecution case is that 20 blocks which are used for printing forged Saudi Aqamas were secured from his possession. As provided in section 18 of the Emigration ordinance, 1979, the possession of the articles allegedly recovered from the applicants is an offence punishable with imprisonment extending upto 14 years or with fine or with both. The learned counsel for the applicants were right in pointing out that in view of the precedent case of Muhammad Akhtar referred to above, the case of the applicants is not hit by the embargo contained in section 497, Cr.P.C. But in the same judgment it has also been held: "However if the case falls outside the limitations contained in section 497, Cr.P.C. it would not mean that accused, in case of non‑bailable offence, would automatically be released on bail " That is to say that the Court has to consider the question of grant of bail on merits of each individual case. It is common knowledge that illegal emigration of Pakistani personnel has assumed a form of racket. Unless it is curbed with iron hand, it will not only ruin the unfortunate people involved in the racket but will also tarnish the fair name of our country. Therefore, I am of the view that in the cases of this nature the Courts should be slow in extending the concession of bail to the accused. The case of the applicants is distinguishable from that of the accused Ayub who has been enlarged on bail, On perusal of the order, dated 13‑3‑1985 whereby the learned Chief Justice granted bail to him, it would appear that the only evidence against that accused is that he had introduced the co‑accused Iqbal Hussain to the owner of the printing press for the purpose of getting the Aqamas prepared. Therefore, the ground that co‑accused Ayoub has been admitted to bail is not available to the applicants. The next argument that the applicants were not in conscious possession of the 'Aqamas' and other incriminating articles recovered from them is also without any force. There is no material on the record to warrant such inference. The argument that applicants have derived no benefit from possession of the articles recovered from this is equally ineffective. As pointed out above the possession of the said articles is enough to fasten the applicants with the liability. Consequently it is immaterial if any benefit has accrued to them from possession or not. The contention that the evidence is lacking that the applicants have forged or attempted to forge the 'Aqamas' and other incriminating articles recovered from them is also of no assistance to them. The possession of the said articles is itself an offence. The ground of absence of some of the applicants at the time of the recoveries, taken in support of the bail application is also without force. There is nothing to show that the recoveries were made in absence of the applicants. On the contrary it appears that the recoveries were made from the premises allegedly in exclusive possession of the applicants. The additional argument made on behalf of applicant Shahbaz was that he was arrested on the next day of the recoveries allegedly made from him. Even if his arrest was not effected on the same day of the recoveries, that by itself is no reason to doubt the recoveries. For above reasons the bail applications of the applicants being without merit were dismissed as stated above. M.Y.H. Bail refused.