JAVED IQBAL and anothers vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by two accused persons, Javed Iqbal and Muhammad Naeem Khan, who were charged under the Passport Act for allegedly obtaining Pakistani passports through false statements and fake residence certificates. The applicants challenged the order of the Additional Sessions Judge, which had previously declined their bail. The core legal question was whether the applicants were entitled to bail given that the alleged offences under the Passport Act were not punishable by death, imprisonment for life, or rigorous imprisonment for ten years, thereby falling outside the prohibitory clause of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court held that since the prosecution failed to establish that the accused were prima facie guilty of an offence punishable by the specified severe sentences, there were no reasonable grounds to believe them guilty of such offences. Consequently, the Court granted bail to the applicants, affirming the principle that where an offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of the relevant bail provision, the grant of bail is the rule and refusal is the exception.
- Does an offence under the Passport Act fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Is an accused entitled to bail if the alleged offence is not punishable by death, life imprisonment, or ten years of rigorous imprisonment?
- Section 6(1)(a), Passport Act 1974
- Section 6(1)(e), Passport Act 1974
- Section 6(1)(f), Passport Act 1974
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
1. ' By this order I propose to dispose of bail application filed on behalf of applicants laved Iqbal and Muhammad Naeem Khan arising out of F.I.R. No,396 of 2001 registered with Police Station F.I.A.
2. Passport Cell, Karachi, for an offence under section 6(1)(a)(e)(f), Passport Act. The bail plea of the applicants was declined by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Malir, Karachi vide order dated 3-11-2001.
3. ' The prosecution story as enunciated in the F.I.R. Is that on 17-10-2001 at 3-10 p.m. S.-I. Javedul Haq, appeared at Police Station F.I.A. Passport Cell, Karachi and lodged F.I.R. That according to Enquiry No,490 of 2001 dated 15-10-2001, passengers Javed Iqbal and Muhammad Naeem Khan, having Passports Nos.K-639074, dated 31-8-2001 and 6329340 dated 3-9-2001 issued from Karachi were deported from Bako in Flight No,EK-602 and reached at Karachi Airport whom Inspector Rasheed Ahmed Soomro, Incharge Shift PIA Immigration QIAP, sent them to the Cell with written Report No,328/2001. During the investigation, it transpired that accused Javed Iqbal belonged to Attock and accused Muhammad Naeem Khan belonged to Peshawar who got Pakistani passports on v rong statements showing their fake residence at Karachi and Certificate for getting Passports. It also transpired that they got arranged the same Passport by one agent Khalid for consideration of Rs,25,000 each. In such background, F.I.R., as above was lodged.
4. ' The investigation followed and in due course the applicants were sent up to stand trial in the Court of law.
5. ' I have heard the learned counsel for the applicants as well as learned Standing Counsel. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the applicants that case against the applicants is false: It has further been contended by the learned counsel for the applicants that none of these offences is punishable with more than three years' imprisonment and as such the applicants are entitled to bail since the offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C.
6. Learned counsel has relied upon the case of Zara Khan v. The State 1991 PCr.LJ Note 205 at page 147 and Muhammad Younus v. The State 2001 PCr.LJ 157 and one unreported order passed in Criminal Bail Application No,1281 of 2001.
7. ' On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel concedes to the above legal position but has opposed on the ground that apparently forgery has been committed.
8. ' I have given my anxious consideration to the arguments of the respective parties and have also perused the record.
9. ' In view of what has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicants I am of the considered opinion that this is a case where the prosecution has failed to establish that the accused is prima facie guilty of an offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life or R.I. For ten years and there are no reasonable grounds to believe him to be guilty of such an offence. Accordingly, the applicants are granted bail in the sum of Rs,1,00,000 each and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of Nazir of this Court.