YLRN 2017

2017 PLP 325 (YLRN)

RAIS AHMED SIDDIQUI and others — Applicants Versus The STATE — Respondent

Jurisdiction / Court
Sindh
Decided Date
Cr. Bail Applications Nos.706 and 739 of 2016, decided on 20th June, 2016.
Honorable Judges
Shahnawaz Tariq, J
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 2017 PLP 325 (YLRN)
Forum / Court Sindh
Bench Members Shahnawaz Tariq, J
Parties RAIS AHMED SIDDIQUI and others — Applicants Versus The STATE — Respondent
Primary Law (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2017 PLP 325 (YLRN)?

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

Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2017 PLP 325 (YLRN)?

The case was heard and decided by the Sindh bench comprising: Shahnawaz Tariq, J.

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

Cite this legal precedent as: 2017 PLP 325 (YLRN) (RAIS AHMED SIDDIQUI and others — Applicants Versus The STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Laws Cited

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

Headnotes / Summary

S. 497

Emigration Ordinance (XVII of 1979), Ss. 18(a), 17(2) & 22(b)

Unlawful emigration, fraudulently inducing to emigrate, receiving money for providing foreign employment

Bail, grant of

No time of raid was mentioned in the FIR

Allegedly nine test reports were confiscated from accused persons but complainant did not come forward to corroborate the allegations levelled against accused

No incriminating material had been brought on record including passports or visa etc. which attracted S. 17(2), Emigration Ordinance, 1979

Alternate punishments i.e. imprisonment or fine or both had been provided for the alleged offences which did not fall within ambit of restraining clause of S.497, Cr.P.C.

When two punishments were provided for the alleged offence in Schedule, lesser quantum of sentence should be taken into consideration for the purpose of bail

Bail was allowed accordingly. [Para. 4 of the judgment]

S. 497

Bail

Principle

When two punishments were provided for the alleged offence in Schedule, lesser quantum of sentence would be taken into consideration for the purpose of bail. [Para. 4 of the judgment] Tajamul Azam Choudhary and Ayaz Ali Chandio for Applicants. Muhammad Munir Ahmed for Applicant (in Cr. Bail Application No.739 of 2016). M. Javed K.K., Standing Counsel along with Shabir Ahmed Chandio, I.O./S.I., FIA, AHT, Circle Karachi.

Judgment & Decree

SHAHNAWAZ TARIQ,J:-- This common oder will dispose of Criminal Bail Application No.706 of 2016 filed by applicant Rais Ahmed Siddiqui and Criminal Bail Application No.739 of 2016 filed by applicant Intikhab Alam, whereby they have impugned order dated 18.05.2016, passed by the learned II- Special Judge Central, Karachi.

2. Necessary facts spelt out from instant bail application are that Complainant Sub-Inspector Muhammad Mansoor Mohmand, FIA AHT Circle, Karachi, received credible information and conducted raid on 13.4.2016 at the office of M/s Karachi Trade Test and Training Centre and confiscated 9 Test Reports in the names of different persons and other blank Test Reports along with other articles. Complainant also apprehended Raees Ahmed Siddiqui, Anis Ahmed Siddiqui and Intikhab Alam from said office. It is further alleged that applicants are involved in illegally facilitating the intending emigrants by issuing them fraudulent test reports. It also alleged that applicant Rais Ahmed Siddiqui had received amounts from five persons for providing them jobs in Dubai, hence intant FIR.

3. Learned counsel for applicants contended that M/s. Karachi Trade Testing and Training Centre is registered with Sindh Technical Education and Vocational Training Authority, Government of Sindh bearing Sr. No.2159, dated 19.3.2015; that said registration has expired and applicants have already approached for renewal of registration vide application dated 21.4.2016 and renovation fee Rs.2,700/- was paid through pay order dated 21.4.2016, Bank Al- Falah D.H.A. Phase-1, which is pending before competent authority. Learned counsel further emphasized that 9 certificates have been confiscated by complainant but none of them has come forward to support prosecution story; that no time for conducting raid has been mentioned in FIR and mushirnama, hence case requires further enquiry.

3. Learned Standing counsel, while controverting the above submissions, contended that applicants have been indulged in issuing trade test reports without any authority; that five aggrieved persons have deposed that they paid amounts to applicant Rais Ahmed for proving jobs in Dubai. Learned Standing Counsel relied on 2015 SCMR 173.

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record, which reflects that raid was conducted on 13.04.2016, but no time of said raid is mentioned in FIR and mashirnama. Allegedly 9 Test Reports were confiscated in the names of different persons for office of applicants but during investigation none of them came forward to corroborate the allegations levelled against applicants for issuance of forged certificates. Alleged offences fall within the definition of sections 18(a) and 22(b) of Emigration Ordinance, 1979, which are punishable for 14 years or fine or with both. Similarly, during investigation statements of five persons were recorded by Investigating Officer that they had paid amounts for providing Visa and jobs in Dubai but no prima facie incriminating material has been placed on record including passports or fake visa etc. which attracts section 17(2) of Emigration Ordinance, 1979, which is punishable for five years or fine or with both. Indeed, for the alleged offences alternate punishments i.e. imprisonment or fine or both have been provided in statute, which do not fall with the ambit of restraining clause of section 497(1), Cr.P.C. When two punishments are provided for the alleged offence in schedule, for the purpose of bail, lesser quantum of sentence should be taken into consideration.

5. Considering the above facts, circumstances and quantum of sentence, applicants have succeeded to make out their case for grant of bail on the ground of further inquiry. Consequently, applicants are admitted to post arrest bail on furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (two lacs) each and P.R. bonds in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court. The observations made supra are tentative in nature and learned trial Court shall decide the case strictly on merits. WA/R-29/Sindh Bail granted.