MUHAMMAD SALMAN AHMED SIDDIQUI vs STATE
This is a criminal bail application arising from a case registered under Sections 489(b) and 489(c) read with Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 concerning the alleged possession and distribution of counterfeit US Dollar currency. The core legal question is whether the recovery of 'black notes' alleged to be convertible into genuine currency via chemical treatment brings the case within the penal provisions, and whether the applicant is entitled to post-arrest bail on the grounds of further inquiry. The court held that the recovery of black notes creates a case for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to determine whether possessing such untreated notes constitutes an offence under the charged sections, especially given that co-accused had already been granted bail. Consequently, the bail application was allowed, establishing the principle that tentative assessment regarding the nature of recovered items favoring further inquiry entitles an accused to bail.
- Whether the recovery of untreated black notes constitutes an offence under Sections 489(b) or 489(c) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Does the recovery of items requiring chemical processing to become counterfeit currency make out a case for further inquiry under bail jurisprudence?
- Is an accused entitled to post-arrest bail when co-accused facing similar allegations have already been granted bail?
- Section 489(b), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 489(c), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
1. Granted.
2. The applicant is facing trial before the III Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi East, in FIR No, 12/2011 under Sections 489(b), 489(c) read with Section 34, PPC lodged at PS FIA Crime Circle. He has approached this Court for bail.
1. Brief facts of the case are that the FIA authorities were informed by their source that two persons, namely, Muhammad Naeem and Faisal, are involved in the sale and distribution of fake US Dollars currency. The source, with approval of the competent authority, approached the said two persons and informed the higher ups that the said persons have agreed to sell counterfeit US $ notes 100/- denomination for Rs, 3500/-. Accordingly a deal was struck for purchase of 10,000 fake notes of US Dollar 100/- denomination near Quetta Tea Stall near Al-Falah Mosque, AI-Falah Market, PECHS, Block 2, Karachi. An FIA team was arranged which reached PS Ferozabad and sought assistance of the SHO Aurangzeb Khan. The party reached the designated spot and on the signal of the source, apprehended both the said persons and recovered counterfeit US $ currency notes. They were brought to the PS Crime Circle, FIA. During interrogation, the said accused persons disclosed that all the recovered counterfeit US $ notes were provided to them by one Muhammad Salman Ahmed Siddiqui. Accordingly, they were asked to call the said person on their phone for some more counterfeit currency notes to which he agreed and asked them to come to Muhammad Ali Sheermal Shop, adjacent to Javed Hospital at Jahangirabad, Nazimabad No, 1, Karachi. The FIA party, alongwith the said two persons, reached the designated place and arrested the present applicant and booked him in the present case.
2. The applicant moved an application before the trial Court for bail which was dismissed vide order dated 7.6.2011. Hence this application.
3. The learned counsel for the applicant, at the very outset, invited my attention to the Final Charge Sheet No, 36/3011 dated 11.7.2011 and stated that only black notes have been shown to have been recovered from this applicant. He also submitted that no private mashir was arranged by the FIA and that the persons shown as private persons are in fact interested person as one is the owner of the shop from where the said notes were recovered and other is a person working in the said shop.
4. He also states that name of the purchaser has not been disclosed in the FIR. Lastly he submitted that the co-accused Muhammad Naeem and Faisal, on whose pointation the present applicant has been arrested, have already been granted bail by this Court in Cr. Bail Application No, 726 of 2011. In support of his above contentions he relied on the case of (i) M. Dawood v. The State (2008 SCM R 173) and (ii) Habibur Rehman u. The State (2009 M LD 614).
5. On the other hand, Mr. S. Qamarul Islam, learned Standing Counsel; vehemently opposed the grant of bail to the applicant and states that the applicant was caught red-handed by the FIA party in the presence of private witnesses. He also states that on the pointation of the applicant some more counterfeit currency notes were also recovered from his possession. In end he stated that no case of bail has been made out hence this application may be dismissed and the impugned order may be affirmed.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties, as well as the I.O. of the case, and have perused the record and the case law cited before me.
7. It is seen that as per the Final Charge Sheet, black notes were recovered from the possession of the applicant which makes out a case for further inquiry as it has not been stated whether possession of black notes constitutes an offence which falls within the ambit of Sections 489(b) or 489(c) of the PPC. The charge made out against the present applicant/accused is that of possession of counterfeit US Dollars note by the applicant whereas, as per the Final Challan, when the applicant/accused was apprehended it has categorically been opined that black US $ notes were recovered from the possession of the applicant which can be converted, after wash through chemicals, as original US Dollars note which, in my opinion, has made this case a fit case for further inquiry to ascertain whether these black notes by some chemical process can be converted into US Dollars notes or not. It is a trite proposition of law that while considering bail application deeper appreciation of the evidence is not permitted.
8. In view of the above, I am of the view that this is a fit case for further inquiry and, in such circumstances; the applicant is entitled to bail. Accordingly, this application is allowed and the applicant is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing surety in the sum of Rs, 300,000/- with PR Bond in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
9. Any observation made hereinabove is of tentative nature and shall not prejudice the case of any party before the trial Court.