ZAHEER ULLAH vs The STATE
This matter comes before the Peshawar High Court upon a bail application filed by the accused Zaheer Ullah, who was implicated in case FIR No.28 dated 12-3-2015 under sections 4, 5, and 23 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947 read with sections 3 and 4 of the Anti-Money Laundering Act, following the recovery of a large sum of local currency from a vehicle driven by him, allegedly connected to Hundi/Hawala business. The core legal question is whether the accused is entitled to post-arrest bail given the nature of the recovered currency and the absence of a bar against capital punishment. The court held that since the recovered currency is local and the questions of authorization and involvement in Hundi/Hawala require recording of evidence, the case falls within the scope of further inquiry. Consequently, the court admitted the petitioner to bail subject to furnishing suitable surety bonds. The key principle laid down is that where recovered currency is local and the applicability of statutory prohibitions regarding unauthorized currency exchange businesses requires evidentiary determination at trial, the accused is entitled to bail on the ground of further inquiry.
- Whether an accused from whom local currency is recovered in connection with alleged Hundi/Hawala business is entitled to post-arrest bail?
- Does the recovery of local currency without capital punishment for the charged offense make the case one of further inquiry under criminal jurisprudence?
- Whether the question of authorization for running a currency exchange business requires determination at trial rather than at the bail stage?
- Section 4, Foreign Exchange Regulation Act 1947
- Section 5, Foreign Exchange Regulation Act 1947
- Section 23, Foreign Exchange Regulation Act 1947
- Section 3, Anti-Money Laundering Act
- Section 4, Anti-Money Laundering Act
SYED AFSAR SHAH, J.---Accused/petitioner involved in case FIR No.28 dated 12-3-2015 under sections 4/5/23, F.E.R. Act, 1947 read with 3/4, Anti-Money Laundering Act of PS FIA, CBC, Peshawar was refused bail by the learned lower court vide its order dated 19-3-2015. He has moved this further application through his counsel for his release on bail.
2. The allegations against the accused/petitioner as per FIR referred to above are that on 11-3-2015, Naveed Jamal, Inspector of Excise Police Peshawar has fenced the road near Toll Plaza Motorway, Peshawar, when in the meanwhile a motorcar bearing No.LU-072 which was driven by petitioner/accused Zaheer Ullah was stopped for the purpose of checking. The search of the vehicle led to the recovery of local currency amounting to Rs.3,26,00,000. On recovery of the currency, seizure of the vehicle and arrest of the accused, the case was handed over to FIA where during the interrogation, accused/petitioner disclosed that he is running the business of Hundi/Hawala and since he was having no permission/documents regarding the said business, therefore, FIR referred to earlier was registered against him.
3. It is the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the accused/petitioner is innocent and as such has been implicated in the case by the prosecution for ulterior motive, that there is no ocular or circumstantial evidence which could connect him with the commission of crime/offence, that the offence for which the accused/petitioner is charged does not entail capital punishment. In view of the recovery of local currency, the petitioner/accused is entitled to the concession of bail, learned counsel for the petitioner lastly added.
As against that learned counsel for the State while opposing the grant of bail to the petitioner argued that he (petitioner) is directly nominated in the FIR and that in view of the huge quantity of currency which no doubt is local he is not entitled to the concession of bail. Learned counsel was of the view that the business of Hundi/Hawala which now a days is a common practice directly affect the economy of the country.
4. I have considered submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record of the case.
5. No doubt, huge quantity of currency has been recovered from the car in question which was driving accused/petitioner but the recovered amount/currency is local and in the attending circumstances of the case to see as to whether he is involved in the business of Hundi/Hawala and if at all he is whether he was duly authorized or otherwise are the questions which shall be determined at the trial, after recording evidence.
6. Keeping in view the maximum punishment provided for the offence for which the accused/petitioner is charged and recovery of local currency coupled with the other circumstances of the case, there is a scope of further inquiry into the guilt of the accused/petitioner, resultantly, he is admitted to bail on furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 (rupees one lac) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court. The sureties must be reliable, local and men of means.