1984 P Cr (PLP)

Date of hearing: 22nd March, 1984. This is an application on behalf of one Sami Nasir Hussain son of Sabir Hussain filed under section 498, Cr. P. C. read with section 19 of the Extradition Act, 1972.

2. The facts are that the case against the applicant, under section 1343, Article 18 of the U. S. Code has been registered in America. The allegations are that he defrauded the Girard Bank, Wilmington, Delaware, U. S. A. to the extent of U. S. $ 1.6 million equivalent to Rupees two crores and eight lacs approximately in Pakistani currency. The United States Government requested the Government of Pakistan for the arrest and transportation of the applicant for his trial in U. S. A. The applicant was arrested by F.

1. A. Police on 10th October, 1983 and produced before the Vth A. C. M. (West), Karachi in terms of section 7 of the Extradition Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as Act). The Government of Pakistan appointed a Magistrate to enquire the case. The enquiry is in progress. The applicant moved the Enquiry Magistrate for bail but his application was rejected and he then went to the Court of Sessions but his bail plea was also rejected by the Additional Sessions Judge. Karachi by an order dated 9th February, 1984. This bail applica tion came up for hearing before this Court on 11th March, 1984. The notice was ordered to the Deputy Attorney-General as Extradition Act proceedings are involved in this matter.

3. Mr. Syed Sami Ahmad, Advocate for the applicant has contended that the offence for which the applicant is charged is punishable with 5 years' imprisonment and fine of U. S. $ 1,000, therefore grant of bail to the applicant is a rule and refusal is an excepting because offence is not punishable with death or imprisonment for life. He has cited 1969 S C M R 233, where bail was granted in spite of the fact that huge amount was involved in that case. He also relied upon the cases reported 1978 S C M R 64,1983 P Cr. L J 2010, 1981 P Cr. L J 141, 1977 S C M R 474, 1972 P Cr. L J 188, P L D 1968 S C 349 and P L D 1956 Kar.

381. Mr. Sami Ahmad has further submitted that enquiry is not likely to be concluded. The applicant is Engineer and suffering hardships in the jail.

4. Mr. Abdul Sattar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Deputy Attorney-General has submitted that enquiry is almost complete and the case is fixed for arguments. He has further submitted that delay is being caused by the applicant. He states that applicant is an American national and if he is released on bail he can abscond and may not appear before the competent Courts of law in United States. He has vehemently opposed the bail application.

5. Mr. Muhammad Ibrahim Memon, A. A. G., for the State has supported the contention of Mr. Abdul Sattar and stated that this is not a fit case for bail when the enquiry is on the last stage and final decision is being taken very soon. 6. 1n the present case the applicant was fugitive in the terms of Act therefore he has properly been arrested and is being dealt with in accordance with law. The Constitutional Petition No. D-839/1983 was also filed by which the detention of the applicant was challenged and the same was disposed of as not pressed by an order of this Court, dated 8th December, 1983.

7. The circumstances of the present case are very different as the applicant will be tried in U. S. A. and not in Pakistan. The only it is to be seen in this matter whether prima facie case is made out against the applicant then only he could be transported and no conviction can be awarded to him by the Courts in Pakistan. This is not a case where he has to appear before the Court in Pakistan but if bail is granted he has to appear before the Court in U. S. A. I agree with Mr. Syed Sami Abroad Advocate for the applicant that ordinarily the bail has been granted by the Superior Courts even huge amount is involved in some case but this is an exception where not only huge amount is involved but the applicant is a national of America and if it is found proper by the authorities he has to be transported. There is no guarantee that he will go and appear in the Court of U. S. A., therefore this is a case of exception where discretion to grant bail cannot be exercised in favour of the applicant. Since the statements have been made at bar that enquiry proceedings are almost complete there seems to be no reason to release the applicant on bail at this stage. However, I direct the Enquiry Magistrate to proceed enquiry day to day and complete the proceedings within two (2) months. The bail application is dismissed. M. Y. H Bail refused.