MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE Versus State

ORDER

1. MUNIB AHMAD KHAN, J .--According to the facts coming out of the F.I.R. are that applicant Muhammad Siddique was found involved in using a passport of another person by changing his name and photograph from Muhammad Ali to Muhammad Siddique and when he was intending to use that forged passport, he was arrested and has been sent for trial under sections 3/2(a)(b) and 13/14 of the Foreigners Act and read with sections 420, 468, 471 and 109, P.P.C.

2. Mr. Aamir Mansoob Qureshi, learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant has falsely been involved as he has been issued valid passport by passport authority and his name is Muhammad Siddique, which appears on passport. Learned counsel further submits that sections 420 and 471, P.P.C. are non-cognizable offence while section 468, P.P.C. provides upto 7 years' punishment. That for the purpose of sections 468 and 471 necessary permission was required under section 155(2), Cr.P.C. He has relied upon 2000 YLR 539 on the issue that when non-cognizable offences are tried without permission then bail is granted. He has also relied upon 1996 SCMR 1132 on the ground that when all the incriminating documents are coming from the prosecution side then this will be a case of further inquiry and bail was granted. Learned counsel for the applicant, in respect to sections 13 and 14 of the Foreigners Act, has submitted that since applicant is citizen of Pakistan and he was holding Pakistani passport, therefore, sections 13 and 14 is not applicable.

3. Mr. S. Mehmood Alam Rizvi, learned Standing Counsel for the State submits that the applicant can be benefited by a notification between Pakistan, Afghanistan and United Nations in which Afghan National cannot be implicated under Foreigners Act, 1946, therefore, sections 13 and 14 of the Foreigners Act may not be applicable but since he .was using a forged passport therefore sections 420, 468 and 471, P.P.C. are fully applicable and permission for non-cognizable was not according to settled law necessary as when there are more sections and one or more section does not require permission for cognizance then prosecution can proceed without taking permission. He further submits that one letter has been written to passport authority but in this respect report has not yet been received and it is to be ascertained as to what is the link of the applicant with NIC which has been used on the passport as well as passport itself.

4. After arguing awhile, Mr. S. Mehmood Alam Rizvi, learned Standing Counsel has candidly submitted that since the case does not fall within the prohibitory clause, therefore, Court may consider the bail.

5. After going through the factual position, coming on record, it appears that until the report is received from Abbotabad, issuing place of passport, involvement of the accused cannot be determined and further sections 13 and 14 were not applicable in the light of no objection referred to by the learned State Counsel while all other sections are bailable except section 468, P.P.C., which provides sentence upto 7 years and does not fall within the prohibitory clause.

6. In the circumstances, applicant Muhammad Siddique is granted bail in the sum of Rs.2,00,000 (Rupees Two Lac) and PR bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

7. H.B.T./M-9/K ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Bail granted.