2023 PLP 1415 (MLD)
MUHAMMAD EJAZ — Petitioner Versus The STATE and 2 others — Respondents
| Citation | 2023 PLP 1415 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Peshawar (Abbottabad Bench) |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD EJAZ — Petitioner Versus The STATE and 2 others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2023 PLP 1415 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2023 PLP 1415 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Peshawar (Abbottabad Bench) bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2023 PLP 1415 (MLD) (MUHAMMAD EJAZ — Petitioner Versus The STATE and 2 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Fazlullah Khan for Petitioner.
- 3. Arguments of learned counsel for petitioner, complainant as well as learned AAG heard and record perused.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497
Emigration Act (XVIII of 1979), S. 22(b)
Prevention of Smuggling of Migrants Act (XXVIII of 2018), Ss. 3 & 6
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 109
Human trafficking
Complainant (mother of the victim) had directly nominated the accused in her report for alluring her son on the pretext of sending him to foreign country
Mother's victim transferred an amount (Rs. 100,000/-) to the bank account of the accused
Bank account statement of the accused had confirmed the receipt and subsequent withdrawal of said amount by the accused
Whereabouts of the victim were not known, whereas through a viral video, he (victim) was in custody of the person connected with accused
Call Data Record (CDR) showed the contacts of the accused with a female member of the gang
Section 22(b) of Emigration Ordinance, 1979, as well as Ss. 3 & 6 of the Prevention of Smuggling of Migrants Act, 2018, provided punishment of 14 years with fine, so both the offences fell within prohibitory clause of S. 497 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1898
Tentative assessment of record connected the accused with the crime
Accused was not entitled for grant of bail
Petition for grant of bail was dismissed, in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
FAZAL SUBHAN, J.
Accused/petitioner Muhammad Ejaz Saeed seeks his release on bail in case FIR No. 27/2022 dated: 27.07.2022 under sections 109, P.P.C., 22(B) of Emigration Act read with sections 3, 6, PSMA, registered at Police Station, FIA/CC, District, Abbottabad.
2. Complainant/Mst. Sughra Bibi reported the matter to the local police that her son namely Faizan Ahmad met with some unknown agents who offer him a Candian visa. That her son was sent to Iran by the human traffickers/smugglers to further send him to Canada, but in Iran those traffickers/smugglers detained him and asked from his family for ransom of Rs. 700,000/- through telephone number 00989376048842 (Iran dialing code through call) and +0306985069280 (Greece dialing code through whatsapp). Family deposited Rs. 100,000/- into the account of Muhammad Ijaz son of Ghulam Fareed account 0297-0010047743850018 (Allied Bank Bahawalpur). That human traffickers/smugglers gave threats to his family that they will kill victim if they do not arrange the remaining amount so. Complainant also alleged that human traffickers threatened that they would kill the victim in case the further payment is not made. She produced the deposit slips and call recording before the FIA authorities, therefore, the instant FIR was registered.
3. Arguments of learned counsel for petitioner, complainant as well as learned AAG heard and record perused.
4. From the record, it is clear that the complainant Mst. Sughran widow of Muhammad Mushtaq has directly named the petitioner in her report for alluring her son on the pretext of sending him to Canada (foreign country). The petitioner contacted the complainant and demanded Rs. 36,00,000/-, however, she being poor lady, only managed to arrange Rs. 1,00,000/-, which were transferred to his account, and the bank statement available on file confirms the receipt of said amount and its withdrawal. The whereabouts of the son of complainant are not known whereas, through a viral video available in USB, the son of complainant is in custody of the person connected with the petitioner. CDR available on file shows the contacts of petitioner with one Mst. Kausar Parveen, a member of gang. It is argued that now ransom has been demanded through Mst. Kausar Parveen for the release of son of complainant and therefore, section 365-A, P.P.C. is attracted to the case.
5. For the time being, section 365-A, P.P.C. is not applied to the case, however, section 22(b) of the Emigration Ordinance, 1979 has been applied, which provides punishment of 14 years with fine, hence, it falls within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. Similarly, sections 3/6 of Prevention of Smuggling of Migrants Act, also provides 14 years' punishment, hence, from tentative assessment of record, petitioner is prima facie connected with a crime, which falls within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. and therefore, he is not found to be entitled for grant of bail. Resultantly, this petition is dismissed. MQ/48/P Bail refused.