2013 P Cr (PLP)
MUHAMMAD KAMRAN SOHAIL — Petitioner Versus The STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2013 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Peshawar |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD KAMRAN SOHAIL — Petitioner 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) (MUHAMMAD KAMRAN SOHAIL — Petitioner Versus The STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Khan Muhammad Khan Gara for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497
Emigration Ordinance (XVIII of 1979), Ss.17, 18-B, 22-A & 22-B
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.162 & 163
Sending people abroad through fake visa, public servant taking gratification in respect of an official act, and taking gratification for exercise of personal influence with public servant
Accused who had established a firm which deprived at least thirteen poor persons at the pretence of providing them better job abroad, where they would be provided food, maintenance and dwelling etc. in addition to handsome salary
Said persons, who were in the search of service, arranged for huge amount of Rs.3 lac each and paid to accused, who arranged their travel abroad through fake visas, and those persons were apprehended and deported from the Airport
Law against accused provided punishment in the shape of substantive imprisonment upto fourteen years, or fine or both, depending upon the merits of the case
Amount received by accused from said thirteen affectees, had not been returned to them, and it would be inconvenient for them to recover said amount from the accused who was posing himself as Managing Director of a registered firm
Prima facie, it was not a fit case for grant of bail
Bail petition of accused, was rejected, in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
SHAH JEHAN KHAN YOUSAFZAI, J.
Accused-petitioner Muhammad Kamran Sohail who is under arrest in case F.I.R. No.93 dated 23-4-2010 under sections 17, 18-B and 22-A-B of the Emigration Ordinance read with sections 162/163, P.P.C. registered at Police Station FIA/AHTC, Peshawar was refused bail by the Special Judge (Central) Anti-Corruption and Emigration, N.-W.F.P. Peshawar.
2. The case of the prosecution is that 13 persons deported from Abu Dehbi through Flight No.NL 756 Shaheen Air Line arrived at Peshawar Airport. It was found that those thirteen persons were deported by U.A.E. authorities for holding invalid visas, therefore, taken into custody and referred to FIA AHTC, Peshawar. After conducting preliminary inquiry on the spot the case was registered against the petitioner and his co-accused.
3. Learned counsel for the accused-petitioner contended that sections of law levelled against the petitioner carry punishment of imprisonment up to fourteen years or fine or both. Places reliance on PLD 1993 Peshawar 104 and 2009 SCMR 734 wherein the punishment provided is sub-stantative imprisonment or fine and the accused were extended the concession of bail in non-bailable offences.
4. In rebuttal learned counsel for the State submitted that thirteen innocent persons were defrauded and huge amount of Rs.2,85,000 were taken from each of them and the petitioner who was posing himself to be the Managing Director of Mother Land Enterprises and Overseas Employment Promoters is not deserving any leniency. Places reliance on 2001 PCr.LJ 588, 2002 SCMR 1380 and 2008 PCr.LJ 1253.
5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record I found that the accused-petitioner who has established a firm and has deprived at least thirteen poor persons at the pretext of providing them better job in U.A.E. where they shall be also provided food, maintenance and dwelling etc. in addition to handsome salary. Those poor persons were in the search of service arranged for huge amount of Rs.3 lac by each of them and paid to the petitioner who arranged their travel to U.A.E. through fake Visas and they were apprehended and deported from the Airport.
6. Though the sections of law levelled against the petitioner provided punishment in the shape of sub-stantative imprisonment up to fourteen years or fine or both, depending upon the merits of the case. The amount received by the petitioner from the affectee 13 persons has not yet been returned to them and it would be inconvenient for them to recover the said amount from the petitioner who was posing himself as Managing Director of a registered Firm at Rawalpindi. Prima facie it is not a fit case for the purpose of bail and the petitioner is not entitled to the said concession.
7. In these circumstances I am not inclined to exercise discretion for the grant of bail in favour of the petitioner. This petition for bail is, therefore, rejected. HBT/397/P Bail refused.