2015 PLP 2403 (YLR)

MUSARRAT HILALI, J.

Petitioner, through instant petition, seeks bail in case FIR No.38 dated 16-6-2015 registered for offence under sections 5/23 FER Act, 1947, 3/4 AML Act, 2010 by Police Station FIA/CBC, Peshawar.

2. According to the contents of FIR, the FIA received information regarding money laundering, hundi and hawala business being carried out by Haji Adam Khan and his son Noroz. Believing the same to be true, an FIA team raided their shop situated at Chowk Yadgar, Peshawar, wherein, the petitioners were found busy in running the business of hundi, hawala, money laundering and also dealing in foreign currency without any permission from the competent authority, hence the case was registered.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that as per Section 2(h) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947 the Authority before raiding the shop should have ascertained that the person is in possession of proceeds of crime; that before conducting raid, due procedure as described in the Act has not been followed; that petitioners are neither owners of the said shop nor were involved directly or indirectly in the commission of offence; that petitioners have been booked under two different laws in the same FIR, which needs further inquiry. At the end, the learned counsel prayed for release of the petitioners on bail on the above grounds.

4. As against that learned counsel for FIA contended that petitioners were arrested from the shop from where a huge amount along with bank receipts were recovered, therefore, at the moment they are not entitled to be released on bail.

5. Heard. The argument of learned counsel for petitioner that the respondents have bypassed the procedure envisaged by the Act does have force in it but any interference at this stage would amount to prejudging the issue. The court is to see whether there exists reasonable grounds, which would prima facie connect the accused with the offence committed. Section 3 of the Act, prescribes the offence of money laundering, while Section 4 provides the punishment for commission of such an offence. On cumulative reading of Section 3 of Anti Money Laundering Act, 2010, the expression ' proceeds of crime appears to be a prerequisite of an offence committed under the Act. It shows that any money or property derived or obtained by any person directly or indirectly as a result of criminal activity is said to proceeds of crime. As is evident from the contents of the FIR the petitioners were not the owners of the shop from where the alleged amount and bank receipts were recovered, thus, it would be difficult to visualize at this stage the role of the petitioners in the commission of the alleged offence, which needs further inquiry. This petition was allowed vide short order of even date and above are reasons for the same. HBT/346/P Bail granted.