PCRLJ 2016

2016 P Cr (PLP)

MUHAMMAD YOUNAS — Petitioner Versus The STATE — Respondent

Jurisdiction / Court
Peshawar
Decided Date
2015-December-4
Honorable Judges
N/A
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 2016 P Cr (PLP)
Forum / Court Peshawar
Bench Members N/A
Parties MUHAMMAD YOUNAS — Petitioner Versus The STATE — Respondent
Primary Law Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2016 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 2016 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: 2016 P Cr (PLP) (MUHAMMAD YOUNAS — Petitioner Versus The STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Laws Cited

Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)

Representation

  • Arshad Hussain Yousafzai for Petitioner.

Headnotes / Summary

S. 497

Foreign Exchange Regulation Act (VII of 1947), Ss.4 & 23

Indulging in business of hundi hawala

Bail, grant of

Punishments of the offences with which accused was charged, did not fall within the restrictive limb of S.497, Cr.P.C.

In such like cases bail was a rule and refusal an exception

No exceptional circumstance existed to obstruct the way of bail to accused

Accused was admitted to bail, in circumstances.

Judgment & Decree

ASSADULLAH KHAN CHAMKANI, J.

Petitioner Muhammad Younas, seeks bail in case FIR No.114 dated 10.11.2015, registered under sections 4/23, F.E.R. Act, 1947, in Police Station FIA/CBC, Peshawar, wherein he is charged by the FIA authorities for having been indulged in the business of Hundi Hawala illegally without any valid license or permit from the competent authority.

2. Arguments heard and record perused.

3. Without touching the merits of the case, suffice it to say that punishments of the offences with which the petitioner is charged, do not fall within the restrictive limb of section 497, Cr.P.C. and in such like cases bail is a rule and refusal thereof an exception. At the moment there exists no exceptional circumstance to obstruct the way of bail to petitioner.

4. Accordingly, this petition is allowed. Accused/petitioner is admitted to bail provided he furnishes bail bonds in the sum of Rs.3,00,000 with two local, reliable and resourceful sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned Illaqa Judicial Magistrate/MOD concerned. HBT/12/P Bail granted.