RAZZAQ ALI vs THE STATE
This matter arises from two consolidated post-arrest bail applications filed by Razzaq Ali and Muhammad Riaz alias Pappu in respect of F.I.R. No. 253/C of 2006 registered at Police Station F.I.A./P.C., Lahore, for offences under Section 17 of the Emigration Ordinance, 1979 and Section 6 of the Passport Act, 1974. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to post-arrest bail when the charged offences fell outside the prohibitory clause of Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, and the trial was likely to be delayed. The Lahore High Court held that since the offences did not fall within the prohibitory clause, no recovery was pending, the petitioners were not previous convicts, and the trial was delayed due to the vacancy of the trial judge, further incarceration would amount to punishment. Consequently, the court allowed the petitions and granted post-arrest bail to both petitioners.
- Whether bail should be granted when the alleged offences do not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898?
- Can an accused be kept in continued pre-trial detention as a measure of punishment when the trial is delayed?
- Are offences under Section 17 of the Emigration Ordinance, 1979 and Section 6 of the Passport Act, 1974 punishable with a sentence attracting the prohibitory clause?
- Section 17, Emigration Ordinance 1979
- Section 6, Passport Act 1974
- Section 497(1), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' M. BILAL KHAN, J.--- By this consolidated order, I intend to dispose of two bail applications i.e. Criminal Miscellaneous No, 4903/B of 2006 (Razzaq Ali v. The State) and Criminal Miscellaneous No,7036/B of 2006 (Muhammad Riaz alias Pappu v. The State) as both these petitions arise out of one and the same F.I.R. No,253/C of 2006, dated 15-5-2006 registered with Police Station F.I.A./P.C., Lahore for offences under section 17 of the Emigration Ordinance, 1979 read with section 6 of the Passport Act, 1974.
2. The allegation in F.I.R. Registered at the instance of Syed Munir Akhtar Shah, Inspector, F.I.A. Was that one Muhammad Anwar son of Abdul Hameed bearer of Passport No,KB-185449, dated 22-10- 2002 was checked at the airport; during questioning he informed that his real name was Razzaq Ali son of Nizam-ud-Din caste Dogar that he wanted to go Saudi Arabia for employment and for getting a passport he had gone to Passport Office at Faisalabad; that a passport agent by the name of Pappu met with him outside the said office who demanded some photographs and after getting Rs,18,000 got prepared identity card and passport in the name of Muhammad Anwar son of Abdul Hameed on which the petitioners' photograph had been affixed; that he had gone to Riyadh, Saudi Arabia on the said passport and on 24-1-2005 he returned to Lahore; after availing 5-1/2 months leave he again attempted to go to Saudi Arabia through Flight No,SU-734, however, on 11- 5-2006 he was deported to Lahore Airport. Resultantly, the instant F.I.R. Had been recorded.
3. Razzaq Ali petitioner was arrested on 16-5-2006 whereas Riaz Ahmad alias Pappu petitioner had been arrested on 7-8-2006. They applied for their post-arrest bail which was turned down by the learned Special Judge (Central), Lahore in the case of former on 9-6-2006 and in the case of latter on 1-9-2006. Hence these petitions.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record brought by Fakhar-ul-Islam, S.-I./F.I.A.(P.C.), Lahore.
5. It is not denied that the offences with which the petitioners have been charged i.e. Section 17 of the Emigration Ordinance, 1979 and section 6 of the Passport Act, 1974 do not attract the prohibitory clause of section 497(1), Cr.P.C. Section 6 of the Passport Act, 1974 prescribes maximum sentence of three years whereas section 17 of the Emigration Ordinance entails maximum punishment of seven years. The petitioners are in judicial lock-up and no recovery is to be effected from them. They are not previous convicts and I am told that after transfer of the trial Judge his successor has yet not been named. It, therefore, cannot be said with any amount of certainty as to how long the trial will take to begin. In this backdrop the petitioners cannot be retained in custody as a measure of punishment.
6. Resultantly both these petition are allowed and the petitioners are admitted to post-arrest bail provided they furnish bail bonds in the sum of Rs,50,000 each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Duty Judge.