2015 PLP 1860 (YLR)

YAR MUHAMMAD, J.

This petition under section 497, Cr.P.C. seeks release of the petitioner on bail who is in judicial custody at Chilas facing trial of criminal case under sections 420, 468, 471, 109, P.P.C. and section 6 of the Passports Act read with section 5(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act vide FIR No.1 of 2015 recorded at FIA Police Station 14 Circle, Gilgit.

2. Briefly the facts relevant to the case as divulging from the FIR are that the petitioner/accused was posted in Regional Passport Office Chilas as Data Entry Officer, received applications from many persons for issuance of passports who actually were not domiciled from Gilgit-Baltistan while the petitioner/accused shown them to be residents of Gilgit-Baltistan particularly from District Diamer. On the basis of above facts in hand criminal case was registered.

3. I have heard Malik Haq Nawaz, Advocate for the petitioner while Mr, Javed Akhtar, Dy. Attorney General for the State (FIA) at length. I have also gone through the record of the case made available by the I.O. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the offences for which the accused is charged mostly are bailable and if any offence is not bailable same does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. and submitted that when an offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause, bail applications frequently have been decided in favour of the accused. The learned counsel while pressing arguments relied upon the following authorities:- (a) 1992 PCr.LJ 357 (b) PLD 1995 Supreme Court 34 (c) 2001 MLD 1140 (d) 2007 YLR 349

4. Conversely, the learned Dy. Attorney General argued that the accused was employee in an office sensitive in nature holding the post of Data Entry Officer and in the capacity he issued passports to different persons in clear violation of rules prescribed for that purpose by the Government. Argued that the persons to whom passports have been issued are not traced now in their given addresses which meant that the accused issued passports to persons who were not residents of Gilgit-Baltistan and this way he violated the law thus, not deserve to be released on bail.

5. I have considered the matter very carefully in the light of evidence brought on record by the I.O. A perusal of the evidence would show that the petitioner has issued passports to persons belonging to different cities of Pakistan. Although the persons in whose favour the passports have been issued have shown to be residents of Chilas area but practically they are not available in the given addresses nor have such persons ever been resided on the given addresses. This phenomenon does give rise to the question as to why the accused issued passports to the persons who belong to different cities of Pakistan where passport offices have been established to facilitate the needy of that area. Passport is issued to a citizen from the only passport office established in their respective area as per the government policy and this policy has been framed for nothing except to avoid mistake or wrong that a passport should not be issued to a wrong person.

6. Thus, in this matter, it is not the question as to what quantum of sentences are provided under the given sections rather the aspect of the case grave in nature is under my consideration. The illegal act of the accused gives raise to the question that he issued passports to the persons who are now unseen and unheard and possibility is not ruled out that they were wanted persons to any law enforcing agency and this apprehension could not be overlooked at this stage.

7. Before disposing of matters like in hand court has to look into the serious aspects of the case if appearing there and after ensuring the same the court could use its discretion leading to discourage the wrong even that the offence committed by the accused does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. There is also apprehension that the petitioner will leave the areas as he belongs to down country and this very fact and the facts discussed above makes this case extraordinary and exceptional one in which bail is not allowed.

8. For the reasons what have been discussed above, I find no merit in the application, hence dismissed. HBT/82/GB Bail refused.