MUHAMMAD JAMEEL vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a bail application filed by the applicant, Muhammad Jameel, who was arrested in connection with an F.I.R. regarding the alleged facilitation of Bangladeshi nationals attempting to travel to Dhaka using fake or forged travel permits. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to post-arrest bail given the lack of direct evidence linking him to the possession of forged documents and the principle of consistency, as a co-accused had already been granted bail. The Court observed that the prosecution failed to establish that the forged documents were recovered from the applicant's possession and that the investigation remained inconclusive regarding his specific role in the forgery. Holding that the case required further inquiry, the Court granted bail to the applicant. The key principles laid down include the application of the rule of consistency in bail matters where co-accused have been granted relief, and the necessity for the prosecution to establish a direct nexus between the accused and the alleged criminal act, particularly when the burden of proof regarding possession of forged documents is contested.
- Does the rule of consistency apply to bail applications when a co-accused has already been granted bail?
- Is bail appropriate when there is no direct evidence of recovery of forged documents from the accused's possession?
- Does a case require further inquiry when the prosecution fails to specify the role of the accused in the alleged forgery?
- Section 14, Foreigners Act 1946
ORDER
1. 1 Granted.
2. The ease of prosecution reflected in F.I.R., lodged by S.I. Ch. Muhammad Akhtar, is as under:- "On 27-12-2001 at 7-35 p.m. Complainant S.I. Ch. Muhammad Akhtar appeared at Police Station FIA Immigration, Passport Cell, Karachi and lodged F.I.R. That on the eventful day upon receipt of spy information that some Bangladesh nationals are trying to proceed to Dhaka from Karachi Airport on the basis of fake/forged Travel Permits. In absence of their passports, he proceeded to Karachi Airport along with FIA Staff after getting permission from the Deputy Director, FIA Passport Circle, Karachi. It is further disclosed in the F.I.R. That at the Airport on the pointation of informer one group of Bangladesh nationals was found sitting on the chairs, some of whom upon inquiry, disclosed that they were waiting for their agent who had to provide them air tickets along with other travel documents. Subsequently, three persons reached there and one of them started distributing travel documents along with' air tickets amongst the members of the said group. The complainant apprehended all the three persons and recovered travel permits along with air tickets from one person who introduced himself as Zainul Abedin, an employee of M/s. Moon Travel (Pvt.) Limited, Karachi near Cantt. Station, Karachi. He took overall the documents available with the culprits and prepared seizure memo. In presence of witnesses, where after he brought all 14 persons along with .10 Travel Permits, one Bangladesh passport and 11 air tickets for the sector of Karachi-Dhaka, issued by M/s Moon Travel (Pvt.) Limited, Karachi, to the FIA Passport Cell, Karachi for further interrogation.
2. ' On inquiry it was found that. Syed Ali Faisal Naqvi and Kamran Ehsan were not involved in sending 11 Bangladeshi nationals on travel permit or in preparation of the said travel permits whereas other agents, namely, (i) Hameed Bengali, (ii). Ehsanuddin, Managing Director of M/s Moon Travel (Pvt.)
3. Limited, Daudpota Road, Karachi, (iii) Hussain Bengali, a shopkeeper in Muslim Colony, Karachi (iv)
4. Mufti Noorul Hague and (v) Munir, an employee of M/s Sunrise Travel near Cantt. Station, Karachi, were involved in sending the Bengali nationals abroad and preparation of Travel Permits/documents. Accordingly, F.I,R., as- above, was registered."
5. ' I have heard Mr. Raja Mir Muhammad, learned counsel for applicant and Ziauddin Nasir, learned Standing Counsel for the State. Ch. Muhammad Akhter, the complainant and Investigating Officer is also present in Court. On reading out the Mashirnama prepared by him he was unable to state as to whom the fake documents were delivered at the time of occurrence. It is stated that 3 persons out of 10 were given envelopes but there is no specific mention of their names. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that one of the co-accused has already been granted bail by order dated 7-2-2002 in Criminal Bail No,101 of 2002 and the present applicant, being Pakistani national, is also entitled to concession of bail following the rule of consistency. He contended that there was no direct evidence of recovery of any forged document from the possession of present applicant, therefore, his case requires further inquiry. He further submitted that the applicant is a Pakistani national, provisions of section 14(2) of attracted. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the applicant relied on (1) 1993 PCr.LJ 500 (Farid Khan v. The State), (2) 1994 PCr.LJ 1689 (Rehan Rashid v. The State) and (3) PLD 1995 SC 34 (Tariq Bashir v. The State).
6. ' Mr.Syed Ziauddjn Nasir, learned Standing Counsel, opposed the grant of bail on the ground that the offence falls within the ambit of section 14 of Foreigners Act and on verification the Consulate has reported that the documents were fake and forged.
7. Assuming that the documents are forged and fake the burden lies on the prosecution to establish involvement of the applicant with commission of forgery. It is also claimed that the applicant is Pakistani national. Besides, there is no direct allegation that the documents were secured from the possession of applicant. The case of applicant, therefore, requires further inquiry. Additionally, on the ground of the rule of consistency also the applicant is entitled to bail.
8. ' The application for bail is granted. The applicant be. Released on furnishing one surety in the amount of Rs,1,00,000 and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.