2020 P Cr (PLP)

ABDUL MAALIK GADDI, J.

Having remained unsuccessful in obtaining his release on bail from trial Court in Crime No.46/2018 registered under section 6(i)(G)(H), Passports Act, 1974 read with Ss.406/420/109, P.P.C. at PS FIA, AHT, Karachi. Now the applicant Nasir Abbas son of Masroor Ahmed is seeking his release on bail in the said crime through instant bail application.

2. The allegation against the applicant/ accused is that the office of Al -Hashmi Travel and Tours, which was sealed by the I.O. of the crime during investigation, but accused Qaiser Abbas broken the lock of the said office at the insistence of the present applicant.

3. It may be mentioned here that bail to accused Qaiser Abbas Khan was rejected by this Court vide detailed order dated 07.6.2018 and as per statement of learned APG, the case of the said accused was disposed of in conviction by the trial Court.

4. It is argued by learned counsel for applicant/ accused that the applicant/accused is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case with mala fide intention and due to some ulterior motive by complainant; that neither the applicant has committed the alleged offence nor has any concern the crime; that no any specific role has been assigned towards the present applicant/accused in the alleged case/crime nor so no detailed any account in shape of documentary in entire case; that only the mere statement of the co-accused applicant's name is placed in challan; that this is a case of no evidence and in the absence of any direct evidence, the applicant's case is fit for further enquiry under section 497(2), Cr.P.C. He prayed for grant of bail to the applicant/ accused.

5. On the other hand, learned AAG has opposed this bail application on the ground that this applicant/ accused with the connivance of accused Qaiser Abbas Khan, who was subsequently convicted by the trial Court has committed cheating, fraud and forgery with innocent people at large on the pretext of providing them visas for performing Hajj and Umrah.

6. I have heard the learned counsel for parties at a considerable length and have gone through the case papers so made available before me.

7. It appears from the record that the charge sheet in this crime was submitted on 15.4.2018 showing present applicant/accused as absconder in column No.2. Co-accused Qaiser Abbas Khan, Ex-Manager of Messrs Shirka Al-Hashmi Travel and Tours, Hajj and Umrah Services, was arrested from the spot by FIA and recovery of passports detailed in FIR was effected and said accused Qaiser Abbas Khan was subsequently convicted under section 245(ii), Cr.P.C. of trial Court vide judgment dated 11.9.2018. It is an unrebutted fact that applicant/accused is CEO of said company and he has remained absconder for long period till arrest. A fugitive from law loses some of the normal rights granted by the procedural and substantive law and noticeable abscondence disentitles the absconder to the concession of bail notwithstanding the merits of the case. Learned defense counsel has not justified and explained the abscondence of applicant/ accused, whereby he had thwarted the course of justice. So far the allegations in FIR are concerned, the absence of accused appears corroborative evidence. No specific animosity is pointed out by learned defence counsel during arguments for false implication of applicant/ accused.

8. Since the serious allegations have been levelled against the applicant. As observed above, applicant/accused is involved in a case of serious and heinous in nature. He has committed forgery/ cheating and taken the law in his own hands and present case indeed appears to effect public at large and qualifies to be treated as an exceptional circumstances, therefore, merely because the offences for which the punishment was not for death or imprisonment of life or ten years is no ground for grant of bail in each and every case. In this connection, I am also fortified with the cases of Imtiaz Ahmed and another v. The State reported as PLD 1997 SC 545, Muhammad Siddique v. Imtiaz Begum and 2 others reported as 2002 SCMR 442 and Muhammad Siddiq Awan v. The State reported as 2003 PCr.LJ

890. In the case of Muhammad Siddique v. Imtiaz Begum and 2 others reported as 2002 SCMR 442, it has been observed as under: "Ss. 497 & 498

Bail in non-bailable offences. None can claim bail as of right in non-bailable offences even though the same do not fall under the prohibitory clause of S.497, Cr.P.C."

9. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case and the cited case laws, the applicant/ accused has failed to make out his case for grant of bail. I, accordingly, dismissed the instant bail application. Since the accused is behind the bars since his arrest, therefore, trial Court is directed to proceed the case expeditiously and decide the same as early as possible, preferably, within a period of six months, after receipt of this order and no unnecessary adjournment shall be granted to either side, so also compliance report be submitted to this Court through MIT-II. ADN/N-60/Sindh Bail declined.