2007 PLP 1015 (YLR)

MUHAMMAD ATHAR SAEED, J.

This bail application has been moved by the applicants Muhammad Azeem and Munir Ahmed for their release on bail in Crime No.636 of 2006, registered with Federal Investigation Agency on 15-11-2006 under sections 17(1), 17(2)(b) and 22(b) of Emigration Ordinance, 1979.

2. Brief facts of case are that the applicants are driver and conductor of a Bus No.CH-12710 of Mullah Jan Transport which while proceeding from Chakiwara to Mand Billo was stopped by police after about 1-1/2 hours of its departure and the police after pointing out nine alleged intending immigrants brought them and the bus to F.I.A. Passport Cell and registered a F.I.R. against the applicants and the alleged illegal intending immigrants and Muhammad Asif and Ali Raza whose names were disclosed by alleged intending immigrant Muhammad Arshad under section 17(1), 17(2) (b) and 22(b) of Emigration Ordinance 1979 and arrested the applicants along with the intending illegal immigrant Muhammad Arshad.

3. I have heard Mr. Mehmood Qureshi, learned counsel for applicants and Mr. Mehmood Alam Rizvi, learned standing counsel.

4. Mr. Mehmood Qureshi argued that the raid was based on mala fide, as the citizens of Pakistan are not required to carry their travel documents during their travel in the country. He said that even in the statement of Muhammad Arshad the alleged intending immigrant, no allegation was made against the applicants and no role was assigned to them in the alleged crime. He further argued that even in the F.I.R. no reason has been given for involving them in the offences under the immigration Ordinance. He stated that since no fraud was alleged, therefore, the provisions of section 22(b) of Immigration Ordinance was not attracted and the maximum, which may be said against the accused/applicants isthat they were assisting certain persons to immigrate or deport from Pakistan, which might be an offence under section 17(2)(b) of` the said Ordinance, the maximum punishment of which is five years' R.I. or fine or with both and therefore, the offence does not, fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497(1), C.P.C. He said that even to prove this offence further inquiry is required. He further stated that this Court has granted bail in a number of cases of accused involved in offences under the Emigration Ordinance. On this point he relied on the followed judgments of this Court:-- (1) Muhammad Shakeel v. the State PLD 2000 Karachi 165. (2) Abdul Wahid Kath v. The State 2006 PCr.LJ

513. He therefore, prayed that the applicants may be released on bail.

5. The learned Standing Counsel opposed the bail but did not deny the factual position of the case and could not controvert the arguments of the learned counsel for applicants.

6. I have examined the case in the light of the arguments of the learned counsel and perused the records of the case.

7. The arguments of the learned counsel carry a lot of weight. A perusal of F.I.R. reveals that no allegation has been made against the applicants and no role has been assigned to them. Prima facie the case does not fall in the prohibitory clause of section 497(1), Cr.P.C. and definitely further inquiry is required to connect the applicants with the offences mentioned in F.I.R. I am therefore, of the opinion that the applicants are entitled to bail.

8. The foregoing are the reasons in support my, short order, passed in Court on 11th December, 2006 by which I had admitted the applicants to bail subject to furnishing solvent surety of Rs.100,000 each and personal bonds in the like amount.

9. This bail application is disposed off in the above terms. H.B.T./M-20/K Bail granted.