2013 P Cr (PLP)
IHSANULLAH and another — Petitioners Versus The STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2013 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Peshawar |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | IHSANULLAH and another — Petitioners Versus The STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2013 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 2013 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Peshawar bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2013 P Cr (PLP) (IHSANULLAH and another — Petitioners Versus The STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Arshad Hussain Yousafzai for Petitioners.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497
Foreign Exchange Regulation Act (VII of 1947), Ss. 4 & 23
Dealing in Foreign Exchange unauthorisedly
Accused persons were charged for running business of Hundi/ Hawala
At the time of raid, though certain foreign currency was alleged to have been recovered from accused persons, but they claimed to be employees of a person who had already been enlarged on bail
Fact that none of the offences, in the present case, attracted the mischief of S.497, Cr.P.C., and that one of the co-accused had already been extended the concession of bail, accused person's case, on the principle of consistency alone, was arguable for the purpose of bail
Judgment & Decree
ATTAULLAH KHAN, J.
Petitioners Ehsanullah and Esim Khan, who are charged in a case registered against them and one another under sections 4/23 of the F.E.R. Act, 1947 for having been found in possession of 83520 Saudi Riyal etc., vide F.I.R. No.7/2012, dated 25-1-2012 in Police Station FIA/CBC, Peshawar, have asked for their release on bail mainly on the ground that none of the offences they are charged with attract entail maximum punishment attracting prohibitory clause and that one of the co-accused has already been enlarged on bail.
2. The learned DAG, appearing on behalf of the State, argued that bail cannot be sought on presumptive or hypothetical grounds and that the petitioners being prima facie connected with the crime attracting prohibitory clause do not deserve the concession of bail.
3. I have gone through the record carefully and considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.
4. The perusal of record reveals that the petitioners are charged for running a business of Hundi/Hawala in the shop situated in the heart of the city. At the time of raid though certain foreign currency is alleged to have been recovered from the petitioners but the petitioners claimed to be servant of one Gul Mar Jan who has already been enlarged on bail by the lower court vide order dated 1-2-2012. The facts that none of the offences charged with attracts the mischief of section 497, Cr.P.C. and also that one of the co-accused has already been extended the concession of bail, the petitioners' case too, on the principle of consistency alone, is arguable for the purpose of bail.
5. For the reasons discussed above, this petition is allowed and it is directed that the petitioners be released on bail if they furnish bail bonds in the sum of Rs. One lac each, with two sureties, each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Illaqa/Judicial Magistrate who shall ensure that the sureties are local, reliable and men of means. HBT/611/P Bail granted.