2012 P Cr (PLP)
HAQ NAWAZ — Applicant Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2012 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Sindh |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | HAQ NAWAZ — Applicant Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2012 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 2012 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Sindh bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2012 P Cr (PLP) (HAQ NAWAZ — Applicant Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497
Passports Act (XX of 1974), S. 6(1)(e)
Using a forged, altered or tampered passport
Accused was alleged to have extended the expiry date of his passport by tampering with the same
Accused was present in a foreign country and his passport was in the custody of the Kafeel, who is the custodian of the passport of any person who is employed or is present there for any other purpose and the same is retained by such Kafeel till such time the visa expires and upon such expiration, either the visa is extended or the person is sent back to his home country and the passport is handed over to him at the airport
Tampering or making any change in the passport was not beneficial to the accused and he would not have come back to Pakistan and would have continued to stay in Saudi Arabia if he was in knowledge of such tampering
Offence with which accused was charged did not fall within the prohibitory clause of S.497, Cr.P.C.
Accused was entitled to bail as a matter of right and not as a matter of grace, therefore, his bail application was accepted and he was enlarged on bail.
Judgment & Decree
SALMAN HAMID, J.
Granted.
2. The applicant is booked under F.I.R. No.222 of 2011 of FIA, PP Cell, Karachi, for offence punishable under section 6(1)(e) Passport Act, 1974. In a nutshell per F.I.R. the case is that the applicant tampered with his passport inasmuch as the date of expiry thereof was changed from 21-8-2011 to 21-8-2016. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that tampering of the passport by the applicant was impossible inasmuch as the passport was in the custody of Kafeel of the applicant in Saudi Arabia and such passport was handed over to the applicant for the first time at the time of his departure from Saudi Arabia to Pakistan. It was argued that once the applicant was in boarding lounge question of tampering to his advantage does not arise. It was also contended that even otherwise the offence carries only maximum punishment of three years or fine or both and therefore the case falls outside the prohibitory clause of section 497 of Cr.P.C. and on this account as well he is entitled to bail inasmuch as it is his right and he must enjoy such right. On the other hand learned standing counsel opposed the bail application on the ground that the tampering was made by the applicant himself and he was all along aware of such tampering. Nothing else was argued. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have looked into the case. It is true that it is the Kafeel in Saudi Arabia who is the custodian of passport of a person going there for an employment or any other purpose and the same is retained by such Kafeel till such time the visa expires and upon such expiration, either the visa is extended or the person is sent back to his home country and the passport is handed over to such person at airport and after emigration such person comes back to his home country. Looking at the case from such an angle, it is clear that tampering of the passport and change would not be to the benefit of the applicant and therefore there was no need for the application to have tampered the passport and if he was in the knowledge of such tampering he would have not come back to Pakistan and would be staying on the basis of such tampering up to 2016. This did not happen in the present case. Even otherwise, since the offence falls outside prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. the applicant is entitled to bail as a matter of right and not as a matter of grace and the bail should not be used as a vehicle for punishment. Under the above circumstances, the applicant is enlarged on bail subject to his providing surety in the sum for Rs.25,000 and PR bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court. M.W.A./H-4/K Bail granted.