Shah Faisal vs The State
This matter arises from a post-arrest bail petition filed by Shah Faisal under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 in connection with FIR No. 13 dated 29.03.2022, registered under Sections 5 and 23 of the Federal Exchange Regulation Act, 1947, and Sections 3 and 4 of the Anti-Money Laundering Act, 2010, read with Section 109 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, an employee apprehended during a raid for alleged Hundi and Hawala business, was entitled to post-arrest bail when the offences do not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Cr.P.C. The Lahore High Court held that since the petitioner was merely a manager and not the owner, no independent witnesses were associated with the raid, the offences did not fall within the prohibitory clause, and he had no previous criminal record, his case fell within the purview of further inquiry under Section 497(2), Cr.P.C. The court established the key principle that in non-prohibitory offences where guilt requires further inquiry and the accused has no criminal record, bail is the rule and refusal is the exception.
- Whether an accused who is merely an employee and manager rather than the owner of a business premises involved in Hundi operations is entitled to post-arrest bail?
- Does an offence falling outside the prohibitory degree of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 make bail a rule and refusal an exception?
- When does a criminal case become one of further inquiry under subsection (2) of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 5, Federal Exchange Regulation Act 1947
- Section 23, Federal Exchange Regulation Act 1947
- Section 3, Anti Money Laundering Act 2010
- Section 4, Anti Money Laundering Act 2010
- Section 109, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
RAJA SHAHID MEHMOOD ABBASI, J. Through this petition under section 497, Cr.P.C, petitioner Shah Faisal, seeks post-arrest bail in case FIR No.13 dated 29.03.2022 registered under sections 5 and 23 of Federal Exchange Regulation Act, 1947, sections 3, 4 of Anti Money Laundering Act, 2010, read with section 109, P.P.C., at Police Station FIA/CBC Rawalpindi.
2. Briefly the facts of the case are that on 29.03.2022 at 11;00 am the FIA Authorities conducted a raid at shop Nos.3 and 4, 1st Floor, Banday Arcade near Novelty Cinema, Ratta Amral Road, Rawalpindi, and found Shah Faisal petitioner Manager involved in the business of Hundi and the authorities recovered Pakistan currency Rs.1,18,33,000/-, Hundi Hawala receipts, mobiles containing messages of Hundi Hawala and large number of cheque books of various banks. The petitioner told the team that the owner of the said business is Naeem Shah and Naimat Ullah.
3. Heard. Record perused.
4. It evinces from record that though the accused/petitioner is specifically nominated in the FIR with the allegation that at time of raid he was apprehended red-handed from the premises but it is not disputed that he is not the owner of the said business premises which was being run by one Naeem Shah co-accused, who has already been apprehended and is still, behind the bars. The petitioner is only an employee and performing his duties as Manager. Said fact has also come on record during investigation. It is also a circumstance that during entire proceedings of raid, no independent witness was associated and the proceedings were carried out in presence of FIA officials/officers. Moreover, none of the offences mentioned in the crime report fall within the ambit of prohibitory degree of section 497, Cr.P.C. and in such like cases bail is a rule and refusal is an exception as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Tariq Bashir v. The State (PLD 1995 SC 34). The exceptions mentioned in supra case, are not available in the present case as the petitioner has no, previous criminal record. In view of the above, the involvement of the petitioner in the instant case would be determined by the trial court after recording evidence. At present the case of the petitioner has become one of further inquiry falling under subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. The petitioner is behind the bars and his person is no more required for further investigation.
No useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner behind the bars.
5. Consequently, this petition is allowed and the petitioner Shah Faisal is enlarged on bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees two lac) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial court.