Muhammad Ejaz vs The State and 2 others
This matter concerns a post-arrest bail petition filed by the accused, Muhammad Ejaz, who was charged in connection with human trafficking and extortion. The complainant alleged that the petitioner lured her son with promises of a Canadian visa, subsequently detained him in Iran, and demanded ransom, with a portion of the funds deposited into the petitioner's bank account. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to post-arrest bail given the severity of the charges and the evidence connecting him to the crime. Upon reviewing the record, the Court noted that the petitioner was directly named by the complainant, bank statements confirmed the receipt of funds, and digital evidence linked the petitioner to the victim's captors. The Court held that although Section 365-A of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 was not currently applicable, the charges under Section 22(B) of the Emigration Ordinance 1979 and Sections 3 and 6 of the Prevention of Smuggling of Migrants Act 2018 carried sentences of 14 years, thereby falling within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Consequently, the bail petition was dismissed.
- Does an offense punishable by 14 years imprisonment fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Is an accused entitled to post-arrest bail when there is prima facie evidence connecting them to human trafficking and the receipt of ransom funds?
- Section 109, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 365-A, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 22(B), Emigration Ordinance 1979
- Section 3, Prevention of Smuggling of Migrants Act 2018
- Section 6, Prevention of Smuggling of Migrants Act 2018
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
JUDGM ENT
FAZAL SUBHAN, J. Accused/petitioner Muhammad Ejaz Saeed seeks his release on bail in case FIR No. 27/2022 dated: 27.07.2022 under sections 109, P.P.C., 22(B) of Emigration Act read with sections 3, 6, PSMA, registered at Police Station, FIA/CC, District, Abbottabad.
2. Complainant/Mst. Sughra Bibi reported the matter to the local police that her son namely Faizan Ahmad met with some unknown agents who offer him a Candian visa. That her son was sent to Iran by the human traffickers/smugglers to further send him to Canada, but in Iran those traffickers/smugglers detained him and asked from his family for ransom of Rs. 700,000/- through telephone number 00989376048842 (Iran dialing code through call) and +0306985069280 (Greece dialing code through whatsapp). Family deposited Rs. 100,000/- into the account of Muhammad Ijaz son of Ghulam Fareed account 0297-0010047743850018 (Allied Bank Bahawalpur).
That human traffickers/smugglers gave threats to his family that they will kill victim if they do not arrange the remaining amount so. Complainant also alleged that human traffickers threatened that they would kill the victim in case the further payment is not made. She produced the deposit slips and call recording before the FIA authorities, therefore, the instant FIR was registered.
3. Arguments of learned counsel for petitioner, complainant as well as learned AAG heard and record perused.
4. From the record, it is clear that the complainant Mst. Sughran widow of Muhammad Mushtaq has directly named the petitioner in her report for alluring her son on the pretext of sending him to Canada (foreign country). The petitioner contacted the complainant and demanded Rs.
36,00,000/-, however, she being poor lady, only managed to arrange Rs. 1,00,000/-, which were transferred to his account, and the bank statement available on file confirms the receipt of said amount and its withdrawal. The whereabouts of the son of complainant are not known whereas, through a viral video available in USB, the son of complainant is in custody of the person connected with the petitioner. CDR available on file shows the contacts of petitioner with one Mst.
Kausar Parveen, a member of gang. It is argued that now ransom has been demanded through Mst. Kausar Parveen for the release of son of complainant and therefore, section 365-A, P.P.C. is attracted to the case.
5. For the time being, section 365-A, P.P.C. is not applied to the case, however, section 22(b) of the Emigration Ordinance, 1979 has been applied, which provides punishment of 14 years with fine, hence, it falls within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. Similarly, sections 3/6 of Prevention of Smuggling of Migrants Act, also provides 14 years' punishment, hence, from tentative assessm ent of record, petitioner is prima facie connected with a crime, which falls within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. and therefore, he is not found to be entitled for grant of bail. Resultantly, this petition is dismissed.