MUHAMMAD HANIF vs THE STATE
The petitioner, Muhammad Hanif, sought post-arrest bail in a case registered under Sections 17 and 18 of the Emigration Ordinance, 1979 read with Sections 3 and 4 of the Prevention and Control of Human Trafficking Ordinance, 2002, arising from allegations that he sent his minor sons to Dubai to be used as camel jockeys. The core legal question was whether reasonable grounds existed to believe the petitioner was guilty of the alleged offences, warranting further inquiry under criminal procedure. The Lahore High Court held that there was no available record showing the petitioner was aware of the intended use of his minors as camel jockeys or that any payment was received prior to their departure, and noting the possibility that the minors simply accompanied their mother, the case fell within the scope of further inquiry. The court admitted the petitioner to post-arrest bail, laying down the principle that where the foundational allegations require further probe regarding knowledge and intent, bail should be granted under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.
- Whether post-arrest bail can be granted when the petitioner's knowledge and intent regarding the alleged offence require further inquiry?
- Does the absence of proof of prior payment and parental awareness justify relief under subsection (2) of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Is a case open to further probe when minors travel abroad and the possibility of them accompanying their mother cannot be ruled out?
- Section 17, Emigration Ordinance 1979
- Section 18, Emigration Ordinance 1979
- Section 3, Prevention and Control of Human Trafficking Ordinance 2002
- Section 4, Prevention and Control of Human Trafficking Ordinance 2002
- Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' MUHAMMAD FARRUKH MAHMUD, J.---Muhammad Hanif petitioner has sought post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No,107, registered at Police Station F.I.A./CC, Multan, on 11-5-2005, for offences under sections. 17/18 of the Emigration Ordinance, 1979 read with sections 3/4 of the Prevention and Control of Human Trafficking Ordinance, 2002.
2. Precisely the allegation against the petitioner is that he sent his minor sons Sajjad and Nadeem to Dubai along with Mst. Bashiran. The minor sons of the petitioner were to be used as jockeys in the camel race. After deportation of the minors the instant case was registered.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. It is not available on record that the petitioner was aware of the fact that his sons- were to be used as jockey in camel race when they were sent to Dubai. Similarly there is nothing on record that payment was made to the petitioner prior to sending the minors to Dubai. Furthermore perusal of F.I.R. Reveals that mother of the minors was confined in Jail at Dubai. Prima facie the possibility that the minors accompanied their mother cannot be ruled out. In these circumstances, the allegation levelled against the petitioner needs further probe and inquiry within the ambit of subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. Hence, I am inclined to admit the petitioner to bail, subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rupees Five Thousand, with one surety, in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.