MUHAMMAD ASIF Versus State
The petitioner sought post-arrest bail in a case arising from F.I.R. No. 338/2005 registered under sections 17/22 of the Emigration Ordinance, 1979 and section 3/4 of the Prevention and Control of Human Trafficking Ordinance, 2002. The allegations were that deportees en route to Greece were confined by Iranian Kurds, and the petitioner allegedly acted as an interpreter and directed payments to his brother in Pakistan for their release. The core legal question was whether the petitioner made out a case for post-arrest bail considering the applicability of the penal provisions and the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. The Lahore High Court held that provisions regarding human trafficking and section 22 of the Emigration Ordinance were prima facie not attracted, while the offence under section 17 of the Emigration Ordinance did not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. Consequently, the petition was allowed and bail was granted on the principle that bail in such offences is a rule and refusal is an exception.
- Whether the provisions of section 22 of the Emigration Ordinance, 1979 are attracted when no amount was received by the accused for sending persons abroad?
- Does an offence under section 17 of the Emigration Ordinance, 1979 fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898?
- Is grant of bail the general rule for offences not falling within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898?
- Section 17, Emigration Ordinance 1979
- Section 22, Emigration Ordinance 1979
- Section 3, Prevention and Control of Human Trafficking Ordinance 2002
- Section 4, Prevention and Control of Human Trafficking Ordinance 2002
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
MIAN MUHAMMAD NAJAM- UZ-ZAMAN, J .---Seeks post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.338/2005 dated 9-8-2005 for the offence under sections 17/22 of E.O., 1979 read with sections 314 of Prevention and Control of Human Trafficking Ordinance, 2002, registered at Police Station FIA, Gujranwala.
2. The said F.I.R. was registered upon the information conveyed by certain deportees who were going to Greece. They were arrested by Turks Authorities and deported to Iran, where they were taken into custody by Iranian Kurds who kept them in their confinement for ten days. Statedly petitioner was also in confinement of said Kurds who could speak Persian and had acted as an interpreter between the deportees and said Kurds, Allegedly petitioner had joined hands with the said Kurds and upon their asking directed the deportees to pay 400 US dollars each to said Kurds for their release and that payment could be made by them to his brother namely Muhammad Arif at Gujranwala (Pakistan). Statedly, on the said assurance deportees made arrangement for the payment of amount to Muhammad Arif at Gujranwala (Pakistan) and upon receiving the call from Muhammad Arif deportees and petitioner were released' but they were again taken into custody by the Iranian Authorities and thereafter handed over to F.C. Force Balochistan in Pakistan.
Bail application of the petitioner was dismissed by Special Judge (Central), Lahore vide order dated 16-9-2005, hence this petition.
3. Bare perusal of the F.I.R. reveals that petitioner never received any amount from the deportees on the pretext of sending them abroad for employment, thus provisions of section 22 of Emigration Ordinance, 1979 are not attracted in the circumstances of this case. Similarly the evidence available on the record is silent qua the petitioner to say that he has the involvement for the offence of human trafficking falling within the ambit of section 3/4 of the Prevention and Control of 'Human Trafficking Ordinance, 2002. As far as offence under section 17 of the Emigration Ordinance, 1979 is concerned, no doubt prima facie circumstances available on record attract the provisions of this section qua the petitioner because he immigrated from Pakistan without lawful authority and was taken him custody by Iranian Kurds and thereafter Iranian authorities but this offence is punishable with five years' R.I, which does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497 Cr.P.C. Grant of bail in such like cases is a rule and refusal is an exception.
Accordingly this petition is allowed and petitioner is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds amounting to Rs,50,000 (rupees fifty thousand), with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of D.R. (Judicial) of this Bench.
N.H.Q./M-23/L Bail allowed.