2015 PLP 894 (YLR)
HABEEB ULLAH — Applicant Versus The STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2015 PLP 894 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Peshawar |
| Bench Members | Abdul Latif Khan, J |
| Parties | HABEEB ULLAH — Applicant Versus The STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2015 PLP 894 (YLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2015 PLP 894 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Peshawar bench comprising: Abdul Latif Khan, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2015 PLP 894 (YLR) (HABEEB ULLAH — Applicant Versus The STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Date of hearing: 23rd January, 2015.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497
Foreign Exchange Regulation Act (VII of 1947), Ss.5, 19 & 23
Anti-Money Laundering Act (VII of 2010), Ss.3 & 4
Running of business of Hundi and Foreign Currency without any permission, money laundering
No test purchase had been conducted by the FIA Authorities at the time of raid; in order to ascertain the actual truth about involvement of accused in the business of Hundi/Hawala; as well as foreign currency
No independent witness had been cited on the recovery memo, which was clear violation of provisions of S.103, Cr.P.C., and S.19 of Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947, showing mala fide on the part of complainant/FIA authorities
Offences with which accused was charged, did not come under the prohibitory clause of S.497(1), Cr.P.C.
Grant of bail in such like cases, was a rule, and its refusal an exception
Ultimate conviction and incarceration of a guilty person could repair the wrong caused by as mistaken relief of interim bail granted to him, but no satisfactory reparation could be offered to an innocent person for his unjustified incarceration at any stage of the case, albeit his acquittal in the long run
Despite remaining in Police custody, accused had made no confession before the competent court, connecting him with the commission of offence
Accused was behind the bars since his arrest on 29-12-2014; and he was no more required to the FIA authorities for further investigation
Keeping accused behind the bars, would serve no useful purpose
Accused was admitted to bail, in circumstances. Arshad Hussain Yousafzai for Applicant. F.M. Sabir for the State.
Judgment & Decree
ABDUL LATIF KHAN, J.
Petitioner Habeeb Ullah seeks post arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.60 dated 29-12-2014, under section 5/23 FER Act, 1947 r/w 3/4 AML Act, P.S. FIA/CBC, Peshawar.
2. As per prosecution case, the shop of petitioner was raided by the FIA officials on the basis of Inquiry No.23/2012 of FIA SBC Karachi, alleging therein involvement of petitioner in illegal business of Hundi Hawala and money laundering where petitioner was found busy in running business of Hundi and Foreign currency without any permission from the competent authority and cash amount of Rs.305,000 Pakistani currency along with Hundi Hawala documents, and receipts etc., were recovered from his possession. Consequently instant FIR was registered against the petitioner. Arguments heard and record perused.
3. Perusal of record reveals that no test purchase has been conducted by the FIA authorities at the time of raid in order to ascertain the actual truth about involvement of petitioner in the business of Hundi Hawala as well as foreign currency. Besides, no independent witness has been cited on the recovery memo which is clear violation of provisions of section 103, Cr.P.C. and section 19 of FER Act, 1947, showing mala fide on the part of complainant/FIA authorities.
4. The offences with which the petitioner, is charged, do not come under the prohibitory clause of section 497(1), Cr.P.C. and in such like cases grant of bail is a rule and its refusal is an exception. The ultimate conviction and incarceration of a guilty person can repair the wrong caused by a mistaken relief of interim bail granted to him but no satisfactory reparation can be offered to an innocent person for his unjustified incarceration at any stage of the case, albeit his acquittal in the long run. Despite remaining in police custody petitioner has made no confession before the competent Court, connecting him with the commission of offence. He is behind the bar since his arrest and no more required to the FIA authorities for further investigation therefore, keeping him behind the bar would serve no useful purpose.
5. In view of what has been observed above, this petition is allowed and petitioner is admitted to bail subject to furnishing bail bond to the tune of Rs.5,00,000 (Five Lac) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court concerned, who shall ensure that the sureties are local, reliable and men of means. The above are reasons of my short order of even date. HBT/44/P Bail granted.