ATHAR AHSAN Versus State

ORDER

1. MUHAMMAD SALEEM JESSAR, J.--- Learned counsel for the applicant argues that applicant is employee of the company and no direct transaction was made with him. He further submits that there is no direct evidence regarding transaction from any victim, however, if any it was with the co-accused who are owners of the company. He further submits that co-accused Ghazanfer Din Khan and Faizuddin Khan have been granted pre-arrest bail by learned trial Court vide order dated 8.4.2016, although nothing has been secured from the physical possession of the applicant and whatever has been shown to have been recovered, was recovery from his office. He submits that co-accused have been extended extra ordinary concession and the applicant is in custody and his case is on better footing then that of co-accused. He submits that on the law of pairty he may be granted bail. In support of his contention he has placed reliance upon the case of Muhammad Shakeel v. The State reported as PLD 2006 Karachi page 165. Lastly he submits for grant of instant application.

2. On the other hand Mr. Muhammad Javed K.K. Standing Counsel for Federation assisted by Shabir Ahmed Chndio SI FIA, AHT Circle Karachi submits that sufficient material has been collected against the applicant. He further referred. The statement of victim namely Abdul Aziz under section 161, Cr.P.C. He however admits that from the contents of the statement of P.W. Abdul Aziz no direct transaction is alleged against the present applicant. He also admits that owners of the company have been granted pre-arrest bail by the trial Court. He therefore, opposes the application.

3. Since there is no direct transaction with applicant and there would be a possibility of the applicant having assisted certain persons to emigrate or depart from Pakistan in violation of law, this as much might amount to an offence under Section 17(2)(b) of the Ordinance which is punishable by five years punishment or fine or both. Co-accused, the company owners have been admitted to bail by learned trial Court, therefore bail could be granted to the applicant by extending constant treatment. I am therefore, of the view that the matter is of further enquiry and the offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause. As such I would admit the applicant to bail upon furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs.100,000/= (One lac) and P.R. bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court. The observations however are only tentative and will not prejudice the case of either side at trial.

4. WA/A-108/Sindh Bail granted.