1989 P Cr (PLP)
HAFEEZ AHMAD‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1989 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Rashid Aziz Khan, J |
| Parties | HAFEEZ AHMAD‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (v of 1898)‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (v of 1898)‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Rashid Aziz Khan, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 P Cr (PLP) (HAFEEZ AHMAD‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Muhammad Tufail for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 18th February, 1989.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑S. 497‑‑Immigration Ordinance (XVIII of 1979), Ss.17, 18 & 22‑‑Bail, grant of‑ Person apprehended at Airport found in possession of forged passports and visas‑‑Accused was implicated by person so apprehended‑‑No instrument or stamps required for forging passports etc. recovered from the accused‑‑Accused not arrested alongwith others‑‑Bail allowed to accused in circumstances. A.H. Masood for the State.
Judgment & Decree
A case under section 17/18/22 of the Immigration Ordinance, 1979, stands registered against the petitioner and another, with Police Station F.I.A. Lahore. The allegation against the petitioner is that he used to send people abroad for employment on the basis of forged documents. It is contained in the F.I.R. that on the receipt of secret information the concerned police officials raided the premises of Lahore Airport where some persons were apprehended and on checking it transpired that their Passports as well as their visas were forged. The said persons during investigation implicated the petitioner and his co accused. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that nothing has been recovered from the petitioner. Submits that the petitioner is in jail since 21 10‑1988 but the trial has not commenced. Submits that bare statements of the persons implicating the petitioner would not mean anything especially when nothing has been recovered from the petitioner to indicate that he was responsible for forging the said documents. The petitioner has been opposed by the learned counsel for the State.
2. I have heard learned counsel and perused the record. The petitioner was not arrested alongwith others who were about to board the plane with forge documents. Nothing has been recovered in the form of stamps or any other instruments with the help of which Passport could be lodged at the instance of the p petitioner. The investigation in the case is complete and the petitioner is not required for purpose of investigation anymore. In these circumstances. I allow bail to the petitioner provided he furnishes security in the sum of Rs. 30,000 with two sureties, each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court. SA./H‑122/L Bail allowed.