MUHAMMAD RAMZAN Versus State
The petitioner sought post-arrest bail in a case registered under sections 17/22 of the Emigration Ordinance, 1979 and section 3 of the Human Trafficking Ordinance, 2002, alleging involvement in human trafficking of children for camel races. The core legal question was whether a subsequent statement by a prosecution witness exonerating the accused, recorded under questionable circumstances, constituted a fresh ground warranting the grant of post-arrest bail after an earlier bail application was dismissed on merits. The Lahore High Court held that the subsequent statement recorded in the absence of law enforcement officials and without proper verification of identity holds no evidentiary value to aid the petitioner. The court dismissed the bail petition, reiterating the reasoning from the previous dismissal order that the accused showed no entitlement to leniency given the gravity of risking children's lives for financial gain.
- Does a subsequent statement of a witness exonerating the accused constitute a fresh ground for bail when recorded without proper identification and in the absence of investigating officials?
- Whether an accused involved in human trafficking of children for camel races is entitled to post-arrest bail?
- Section 17, Emigration Ordinance 1979
- Section 22, Emigration Ordinance 1979
- Section 3, Human Trafficking Ordinance 2002
ORDER
SARDAR MUHAMMAD ASLAM, J.-- The petitioner seeks bail after arrest in case F.I.R. No.237 dated, 19-4-2005 registered under sections 17/22 of the Emigration Ordinance, 1979 read with section 3 of the Human Trafficking Ordinance, 2002 at Police Station, F.I.A., PC, Lahore, Circle.
2. Briefly the allegation against the petitioner is that he along with two children namely Fayyaz and Amjad having emergency passports travelled from Dubai to Lahore on 18-4-2005. On suspicion, Emigration Authorities sent the petitioner along with children to Passport Circle Lahore for registration of case as he was found involved in human trafficking for camel race.
I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Standing Counsel and perused the record.
The petitioner's previous bail application was dismissed on merits on 23-6-2005, the relevant portion is reproduced-as under:--
??????????? "The petitioner is an accused of taking his own son Fayyaz Ahmad and a child ? namely Amjad of a relation Murid Ahmad on forged names to Abu Dhabi to be ??? employed as camel Kid in Camel Race. Confession of the petitioner before the ?????? police may not be admissible against him but on record there is a statement of ?? Murid Ahmad, father of Amjad. He stated that his son Amjad was taken to Abu ???? Dhabi for employment as Camel Kid and the petitioner was sending him the ??????????? money for the job undertaken by his son. The .petitioner does not deserve any ? leniency or mercy, who is such a desperate and callous, that he not only risked ?? the life of a child of a relation, but his own son, for the lust of money."
5. The only ground claimed to be a fresh one urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner is a statement of Murid Hussain father of Amjad a Camel Kid deported from abroad exonerating the petitioner from crime recorded by the Special Magistrate on 16-8-2005. It was recorded in the absence of officials from the F.I.A. and an order from the learned Sessions Judge. Murid Hussain was allegedly identified by his learned counsel. His identity card was not examined nor any evidence about his identification was taken on record. The statement of Murid Hussain will thus, is of no help to the petitioner.
6. Reiterating the reasons in order dated ??????????? 23-6-2005, this petition is dismissed.
H.B.T./M-472/L ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Bail refused.