SYED AFSAR SHAH, J.---Accused/petitioner involved in case FIR No.28 dated 12-3-2015 under sections 4/5/23, F.E.R. Act, 1947 read with 3/4, Anti-Money Laundering Act of PS FIA, CBC, Peshawar was refused bail by the learned lower court vide its order dated 19-3-2015. He has moved this further application through his counsel for his release on bail.
2. The allegations against the accused/petitioner as per FIR referred to above are that on 11-3-2015, Naveed Jamal, Inspector of Excise Police Peshawar has fenced the road near Toll Plaza Motorway, Peshawar, when in the meanwhile a motorcar bearing No.LU-072 which was driven by petitioner/accused Zaheer Ullah was stopped for the purpose of checking. The search of the vehicle led to the recovery of local currency amounting to Rs.3,26,00,000. On recovery of the currency, seizure of the vehicle and arrest of the accused, the case was handed over to FIA where during the interrogation, accused/petitioner disclosed that he is running the business of Hundi/Hawala and since he was having no permission/documents regarding the said business, therefore, FIR referred to earlier was registered against him.
3. It is the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the accused/petitioner is innocent and as such has been implicated in the case by the prosecution for ulterior motive, that there is no ocular or circumstantial evidence which could connect him with the commission of crime/offence, that the offence for which the accused/petitioner is charged does not entail capital punishment. In view of the recovery of local currency, the petitioner/accused is entitled to the concession of bail, learned counsel for the petitioner lastly added.
As against that learned counsel for the State while opposing the grant of bail to the petitioner argued that he (petitioner) is directly nominated in the FIR and that in view of the huge quantity of currency which no doubt is local he is not entitled to the concession of bail. Learned counsel was of the view that the business of Hundi/Hawala which now a days is a common practice directly affect the economy of the country.
4. I have considered submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record of the case.
5. No doubt, huge quantity of currency has been recovered from the car in question which was driving accused/petitioner but the recovered amount/currency is local and in the attending circumstances of the case to see as to whether he is involved in the business of Hundi/Hawala and if at all he is whether he was duly authorized or otherwise are the questions which shall be determined at the trial, after recording evidence.
6. Keeping in view the maximum punishment provided for the offence for which the accused/petitioner is charged and recovery of local currency coupled with the other circumstances of the case, there is a scope of further inquiry into the guilt of the accused/petitioner, resultantly, he is admitted to bail on furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 (rupees one lac) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court. The sureties must be reliable, local and men of means.