' SHAH JEHAN KHAN AKHUNDZADA, J.---Accused petitioner Muhammad Bilal facing prosecution in case F.I.R. No,67 dated 4-11-2013 registered under sections 18(a)(b), Emigration Ordinance, 1979 read with section 6 of the Passports Act, 1974 at Police Station, FIA, AHTC, Peshawar was refused bail by the learned Special Judge (Central) Peshawar vide his order dated 13-11-2013. Now he has come to this Court for his release on bail.
2. Brief facts of the case are that on receiving information that Muhammad Bilal son of Noor Gul resident of Dabgari Street No,2 Mohallah Syed Abdul Sattar Bacha Peshawar is busy in illegal business of sending people abroad on forged documents, Syed Fazal Akbar Inspector FIA along with other FIA officials on 4-11-2013 at 15.00 hours raided the office of the accused-petitioner situated in Deans Trade Centre, Peshawar Cantt. Where the accused-petitioner was found present in his office and on search of the office, the said Inspector recovered six Passports including two photo changed passports in the name of Abdul Majid and Said Faiz Muhammad were recovered and taken into possession. The accused-petitioner was arrested on the spot and to this effect a Murasila was drafted which was sent to the concerned Police Station where on the basis of it a case under the above provisions of law was registered against the accused-petitioner vide F.I.R.
No,67 of 2013.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record.
4. Without going into deep merits of the case so that it may not A prejudice the case of the prosecution or the plea of defence, suffice it to say that at present except the recovery of six passports along with two photo changed passports there is nothing on record to show that the accused-petitioner is involved in illegal business of sending people abroad through forged document and this fact would also be determined at the trial stage. At present only section 6 of the Passports Act is attracted in the instant case and the maximum punishment for the same is three years or with fine or with both, which of course, does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. And furthermore the case is of further inquiry as well. Thus the accused-petitioner has made out a case for bail because in such like cases the grant of bail is a rule and its refusal is an exception. In this regard a dictum in a case of Tariq Bashir and 5 others v. The State (PLD 1995 Supreme Court 34) is referred in which it was held as under:-- "It is crystal clear that in bailable offences the grant of bail is right and not favour, whereas in non- bailable offences the grant of bail is not a right but a concession to be given in appropriate cases.
Section 497, Cr.P.C. Divided non-bailable offences into two categories i,e, (i) offences punishable with death, imprisonment of life or imprisonment for ten years; and (ii) offences punishable with imprisonment for less than ten years. The principle to be deduced from this provision of law is that in non-bailable offences falling in the second category (punishable with imprisonment for less than ten years) the grant of bail is a rule and refusal an exception".
5. Besides the above facts and circumstances of the case, I am also of the view that case of the accused-petitioner is arguable for the purpose of bail on account of further inquiry within the meaning of subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. Which entitles him the concession of bail.
6. In view of the facts and circumstances narrated above, I accept this bail application and consequently accused-petitioner is ordered to be released on bail provided he furnishes bail bond in the sum of Rs,1,00,000 (Rupees one lac) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Illaqa/Duty Judicial Magistrate, who shall see that the sureties must be local, reliable and men of means.
' The above are the reasons of my short order announced on 5-12-2013.