Moulana ABDUL SHAKOOR KHAIRPURI and another vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a bail application filed by two Haj organizers, Moulana Abdul Shakoor Khairpuri and Nazeer Ahmed Shaikh, who were arrested by the Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) Passport Cell. The applicants were accused of facilitating 45 Afghan nationals to perform Haj by allegedly processing documents that falsely depicted them as Pakistani nationals. The core legal question was whether the applicants were entitled to post-arrest bail given the nature of the allegations and the evidentiary status of the case. The Court held that the applicants should be admitted to bail. The ratio of the decision rests on the principle of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, as it remained to be determined through evidence who was responsible for the verification of the CNICs and the preparation of the allegedly forged documents. Furthermore, the Court applied the doctrine of consistency, noting that bail had been granted in similar cases, and acknowledged that the offense did not fall within the prohibitory clause of the relevant statutory provisions.
- Does an offense that does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 entitle an accused to bail?
- When does a case fall within the purview of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Is the doctrine of consistency applicable to bail applications in cases involving similar circumstances?
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
1. ' 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.
2. ' 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.
3. ' 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.
4. 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.
5. ' 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.