YLR 2007

2007 PLP 3026 (YLR)

MUHAMMAD ASIF — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent

Jurisdiction / Court
Lahore
Decided Date
Criminal Miscellaneous No. 7112-B of 2005, decided on 27th October, 2005.
Honorable Judges
Mian Muhammad Najam-uz-Zaman, J
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 2007 PLP 3026 (YLR)
Forum / Court Lahore
Bench Members Mian Muhammad Najam-uz-Zaman, J
Parties MUHAMMAD ASIF — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
Primary Law (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), (b) Criminal .Procedure Code (V of 1898)
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2007 PLP 3026 (YLR)?

This judgment primarily cites: (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), (b) Criminal .Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.

Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2007 PLP 3026 (YLR)?

The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Mian Muhammad Najam-uz-Zaman, J.

Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?

Cite this legal precedent as: 2007 PLP 3026 (YLR) (MUHAMMAD ASIF — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Laws Cited

(a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) (b) Criminal .Procedure Code (V of 1898)

Headnotes / Summary

S.497--Emigration Ordinance (XVIII of 1979), Ss.17/22

Prevention and Control of Human Trafficking Ordinance (LIX of 2002), Ss.3/4

Bail, grant of

Accused, according to F.I.R. had never received any amount from the deportees on the pretext of sending them abroad for employment and provisions of S.22 of the Emigration Ordinance, 1979, thus were not attracted

Evidence available on record also did not show the involvement of accused under Ss.3/4 of the Prevention and Control of Human Trafficking Ordinance, 2002

Circumstances found on record, no doubt, prima facie, attracted the provisions of 5.17 of the Emigration Ordinance, 1979, qua the accused because he had immigrated from. Pakistan without lawful Authority and was taken into custody by foreign authorities, but the offence being punishable with five years' R.I. did not fall within the prohibitory clause of S. 497(1), Cr. P. C. and grant of bail in such-like cases was a rule and refusal an exception

Accused was admitted to bail in circumstances.

S.497

Bail

Cases not falling within the prohibitory clause of S.497, Cr.P.C.

Principles

Grant of bail in cases not hit by the prohibition contained in S.497(1), Cr. P. C. is a rule and refusal of bail is an exception. Mian Muhammad Rafi Mughal for the Petitioner. Muhammad Jahangir Wahlah, Standing Counsel. Ahmar Naeem Sindhu, S.I. F.I.A.

Judgment & Decree

MIAN MUHAMMAD NAJAM- UZ-ZAMAN, J.

Seeks post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.338/2005 dated 9-8-2005 for the offence under sections 17/22 of E.O., 1979 read with sections 314 of Prevention and Control of Human Trafficking Ordinance, 2002, registered at Police Station FIA, Gujranwala.

2. The said F.I.R. was registered upon the information conveyed by certain deportees who were going to Greece. They were arrested by Turks Authorities and deported to Iran, where they were taken into custody by Iranian Kurds who kept them in their confinement for ten days. Statedly petitioner was also in confinement of said Kurds who could speak Persian and had acted as an interpreter between the deportees and said Kurds, Allegedly petitioner had joined hands with the said Kurds and upon their asking directed the deportees to pay 400 US dollars each to said Kurds for their release and that payment could be made by them to his brother namely Muhammad Arif at Gujranwala (Pakistan). Statedly, on the said assurance deportees made arrangement for the payment of amount to Muhammad Arif at Gujranwala (Pakistan) and upon receiving the call from Muhammad Arif deportees and petitioner were released' but they were again taken into custody by the Iranian Authorities and thereafter handed over to F.C. Force Balochistan in Pakistan. Bail application of the petitioner was dismissed by Special Judge (Central), Lahore vide order dated 16-9-2005, hence this petition.

3. Bare perusal of the F.I.R. reveals that petitioner never received any amount from the deportees on the pretext of sending them abroad for employment, thus provisions of section 22 of Emigration Ordinance, 1979 are not attracted in the circumstances of this case. Similarly the evidence available on the record is silent qua the petitioner to say that he has the involvement for the offence of human trafficking falling within the ambit of section 3/4 of the Prevention and Control of 'Human Trafficking Ordinance, 2002. As far as offence under section 17 of the Emigration Ordinance, 1979 is concerned, no doubt prima facie circumstances available on record attract the provisions of this section qua the petitioner because he immigrated from Pakistan without lawful authority and was taken him custody by Iranian Kurds and thereafter Iranian authorities but this offence is punishable with five years' R.I, which does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497 Cr.P.C. Grant of bail in such like cases is a rule and refusal is an exception. Accordingly this petition is allowed and petitioner is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds amounting to Rs,50,000 (rupees fifty thousand), with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of D.R. (Judicial) of this Bench. N.H.Q./M-23/L Bail allowed.