MLD 2008

2008 PLP 472 (MLD)

Moulana ABDUL SHAKOOR KHAIRPURI and another — Applicants Versus THE STATE — Respondent

Jurisdiction / Court
Karachi
Decided Date
2007-August-7
Honorable Judges
N/A
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 2008 PLP 472 (MLD)
Forum / Court Karachi
Bench Members N/A
Parties Moulana ABDUL SHAKOOR KHAIRPURI and another — Applicants 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 2008 PLP 472 (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 2008 PLP 472 (MLD)?

The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: N/A.

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

Cite this legal precedent as: 2008 PLP 472 (MLD) (Moulana ABDUL SHAKOOR KHAIRPURI and another — Applicants 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

  • ----S.497(2)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.420, 468, 471 & 109---Foreigners Act (XXXI of 1946), Ss.3(2), (a), (b), 5 & 13---Bail, grant of---Further inquiry---Deputy Advocate-General had conceded to the grant of bail to accused, however, it was contended that the question of forgery and preparation of the documents would be considered after evidence was recorded by the Trial Court---Was yet to be sorted out after recording of the evidence as to who was responsible for verification of CNIC and had prepared forged documents---Case against accused fell within the purview of further inquiry as contemplated by subsection (2) of S.497 Cr.P.C.---Doctrine of consistency was also involved as bail had been granted in similar cases---Accused were admitted to bail, in circumstances.

Headnotes / Summary

S.497(2)

Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.420, 468, 471 & 109

Foreigners Act (XXXI of 1946), Ss.3(2), (a), (b), 5 & 13

Bail, grant of

Further inquiry

Deputy Advocate-General had conceded to the grant of bail to accused, however, it was contended that the question of forgery and preparation of the documents would be considered after evidence was recorded by the Trial Court

Was yet to be sorted out after recording of the evidence as to who was responsible for verification of CNIC and had prepared forged documents

Case against accused fell within the purview of further inquiry as contemplated by subsection (2) of S.497 Cr.P.C.

Doctrine of consistency was also involved as bail had been granted in similar cases

Accused were admitted to bail, in circumstances.

Judgment & Decree

MRS. QAISER IQBAL, J.

Applicants Moulana Abdul Shakoor Khairpuri and Nazeer Ahmed Shaikh has applied for bail involved in the commission of the alleged crime on 30-1-2007. The applicants are Haj organizers. It is alleged that they arranged for documents of CNIC whereby 45 Afghan Nationals proceeded for Haj depicting that they were Pakistani Nationals. The applicants processed the Haj applications of Afghan Nationals through Ministry of Haj Affairs, as a result thereof Haj Passports were issued, they proceeded for pilgrimage and on return to Pakistan they were arrested by the F.I.A. Passport Cell Karachi. It is contended by Mr. Mehmood A. Qureshi learned counsel for applicants that the applicants are Directors of Messrs Al-Mashaer Lil Haji Wall Umrah (Pvt.) Limited Karachi, after proper verification of the documents 'Ministry of Religious Affairs Government of Pakistan had issued Haj Passports, the FIA Immigration checked the travel documents before boarding the plane for Saudi Arabia did not detect the Afghan Nationals, on return they were arrested by FIA Passport Cell. On behalf of the applicants reliance is placed on the order passed in Criminal Bail Application No.449 of 2007 wherein the accused admitted on bail in the similar circumstances. Mr. Mehmood A. Rizvi learned D.A.-G. has half-heartedly supported the applicants' plea of bail on the basis of the order passed in Criminal Bail Application No.449 of 2007, however he has reluctantly stated no objection to the grant of bail as the offence committed by the applicants does not fall within the prohibitory clause contained in section 497, Cr.P.C. I have considered the arguments advanced at bar. Since learned DAG has conceded to grant of bail plea of the applicant, however it is contended that the question of forgery and preparation of the documents shall be considered after evidence was recorded by the trial Court. Keeping in view the attending circumstances of the 'case it is yet to be sorted out after recording of the evidence as, to who was responsible for verification of CNIC and had prepared forged documents. The case against the applicants falls within the purview of further inquiry as contemplated by subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. Doctrine of consistency is also imported as bail has been granted in similar cases therefore applicants are admitted on bail subject to furnishing surety in the sum of Rs.200,000 (Rupees two hundred thousand only) and P.R. bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court. H.B.T./A-141/K Bail granted.