NASIR HAYAT vs THE STATE
The applicant Nasir Hayat sought post-arrest bail in Crime No. 63 of 2000 registered at Police Station F.I.A. Passport Cell, Karachi, for allegedly possessing 17 Pakistani passports and 5 national identity cards. The core legal question was whether reasonable grounds existed to believe the accused was guilty of an offense warranting continued incarceration pending trial, or if his case fell within the scope of further inquiry under criminal jurisprudence. The Sindh High Court held that the circumstances surrounding the applicant's initial detention by the local police, the absence of direct complaints from the individuals whose documents were seized, and unverified allegations regarding a demand for money for employment made the case one of further inquiry. Consequently, the court confirmed the grant of post-arrest bail to the applicant, laying down the principle that tentative assessment of ambiguous evidence regarding possession and motive at the bail stage can make out a case for further inquiry under criminal law.
- Whether possession of multiple passports and identity cards warrants denial of post-arrest bail when the foundational complaints are unverified?
- Does an unclear accusation regarding money demands for employment constitute a case for further inquiry under criminal law?
ORDER
1. ' Applicant Nasir Hayat is facing trial in the Court of Senior Special Judge (Central) II, Karachi in Crime No,63/2000 registered with Police Station, F.I.A. Passport Cell, Karachi on 4-2-2000.
2. ' The facts of the prosecution case are that F.I.A. Police received message from Police Station, Firozabad about detention of the present applicant who was possessing 17 Pak Passports and 5 National Identity Cards of different persons. Consequently S.-I., Najamul Haq Chandio proceeded there and secured the applicant and the aforesaid articles, brought the same to F.I.R., Police Station and became complainant on behalf of State.
3. ' After due investigation the case was challenged and the applicant is facing trial as stated above.
4. ' Bail application moved on behalf of the applicant was dismissed by the learned trial Judge vide order, dated 4-3-2a00, hence this application.
5. ' At the hearing learned counsel for the applicant emphasized that the applicant is innocent and has been involved in the case due to enmity of police and that the passports and N.I.Cs. Were vested upon him.
6. ' The learned State Counsel has also been heard by me who has submitted that: On careful consideration of the respective contentions made at the bar I am pursuaded to observe that in the first instance the police of Ferozeabad Police Station had taken the applicant into custody and telephonic message was conveyed to the F.I.A. People. It is not known whether the private persons whose passports are now seized by the police, had made any complaint against the applicant. According to the result of the investigation the maximum accusation against the applicant is that he had demanded Rs, 17,000 from one Wazir Muhammad Khan for providing employment. It is not known whether the employment was within the country or abroad and whether the payment was actually made.
7. ' In the background of the above circumstances the applicant has been successful in making out a case of further inquiry. Accordingly he is ordered to be released subject to his furnishing surety in the sum of Rs,2,00,000 and P.R. In the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
8. ' Above are the reasons for my short order, dated 10-4-2000.