ABDUL MAALIK GADDI, J. Through this bail application, the applicant is seeking post-arrest bail in case under Crime No.46 of 2018 dated 20.02.2018 registered at Police Station FIA AHTC Circle, Karachi, under Section 6(1)
(g)(h) Passports Act, 1974 read with Sections 201/109, P .P.C.
2. The applicant has approached this Court after the dismissal of his bail application for post-arrest by the learned Judicial Magistrate-X, Karachi (South) dated 01.03.2018 and then learned VIIIth Additional Sessions Judge, karachi (South) vide his order dated 09.03.2018.
3. The brief facts of the prosecution story as narrated in FIR are that the compla inant SI Muhammad Imran, FIA Anti-Human Trafficking Circle, Karachi, lodged the FIR, alleging therein that on 20.02.2018, he received a credible information that the sealed office of Al-Hashmi Travel and Tours, Hajj Umrah Services, ground floor, Seaser Towers, Shahrah-e-Faisal, Karachi, in Crime No.296 of 2017 under Section 6(1)(g)(h) of Passports Act, 1947 read with Sections 420/406/109, P.P.C. and in Crime No.299 of 2017 under Section 6(1)(g)(h) of. Passports Act, 1947 read with Sections 420/406/109, P.P.C., has been illegally de-sealed. It is stated that on receipt of such information, after due permission, FIA team, reached on the spot and found that the said sealed office is in functioning/working condition, and on query from the available person namely Qaiser Abbas son of Muhammad Nawaz Khan, Ex- Manager of Messrs Shirka Al-Hashmi Travel and Tours, Hajj Umrah, failed to give plausible reply , hence, search of the said office conducted and the articles detailed thereof as per contents of FIR, were recovered. Thereafter , said recovered articles/ documents were taken into FIA custody . Hence this FIR.
4. It is argued by the counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent has been falsely implicated with mala fide intention. Per learned counsel, the applicant has no knowledge about sealing of the office and he visited with regard to his dues left with firm about his services being ex-employee of the said firm; that PIA officials first wrongly detained the applicant and on account of refusal to fulfill their demands, they arrested the applicant in instant false case; that the trial Court did not appreci ate the factual aspect that the prosecution has no proof with regard to incident; that the trial Court did not consider the fact that there is no CCTV fotag e proof in respect of version of prosecution as well as recovery; that the alleged sections do not fall within the purview of Section 497, Cr.P.C. and grant of bail in such cases is a rule and refusal if an exception; that in light of above fact and circumstances, the instant case is of further enquiry and full of doubts in the case of prosecution and the benefit of such doubt goes in favour of applicant even at bail stage. Lastly he prayed to allow this bail application. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon the following case laws:- (i) Athar Ahsan v . The State reported as 2017 YLR 134 ;
(ii) Yaqoob Khan and another v . The State reported as 2015 PCr .LJ 1538;
(iii) Abdul Qudus v . The State reported as 2002 PCr .LJ 430;
(iv) Muhammad Younus and another v . The State reported as 2001 PCr .LJ 157;
(v) Sher Muhammad Raees v . The State reported as 1985 PCr .LJ 2709;
(vi) Muhammad Riaz v . The State reported as 1984 PCr .LJ 2463;
(vii) Abdul Hai Siddiqui and 2 others v . The State reported as 1993 PCr .LJ 446;
(viii) Pervaiz Ahmad Butt v . The State reported as PLD 1978 Lahore 405
5. As against this, learned Assistant Attorney General has vehemently opposed the plea of bail agitated by the learned defence counsel and contended that the applicant/accused is involved in a case of serious and heinous nature, as according to him, this applicant/accused has taken the law in his own hands and de-sealed the office of Al-Hashmi Travels and Tours, Hajj Umrah Services. According to him, the applicant has cheated and defrauded the public at large and the other co-accused involved in this case, have already been denied bail by the trial Court; that the accused has broken the seal of the office and was sitting inside the said office and as such, he has tampered with the prosecution evidence; that the passports have been recovered from him in presence of mashirs, who have no inimical terms with the applicant and he was unable to provide any justification for retaining their possession; that the mala fide intentions and guilt of the accused is apparent from the bare reading of the facts of the case as well as mashirnama of arrest and recovery , evidence of prosecution witnesses recorded under Section 161, Cr.P.C., therefore, he is not entitled for any relief.
6. I have given my anxious thoughts to the contentions raised at the bar and have gone through the case papers so made available before me.
7. It appears from the record that the alleged incident took place on 20.02.2018, whereas, the FIR was lodged by the complainant of the case on the same day without any delay . The name of the applicant/accused is appearing in the FIR with specific role. It also appears from the record that the present FIR is connected with the FIR Nos.296 of 2017 and 299 of 2017 and admittedly the office of Al-Hashmi Travel and Tours, Hajj Umrah Services, was sealed by the FIA authorities, however , the applicant/ accused was arrested for illegally de-sealing the said office at his own accord and twelve passports along with cheque books, salary books, received books, payment vouchers and ATM cards, were recovered from his possession under mashirnama of arrest and recovery for which no plausible explanation or justification has been furnished by the accused. Furthermore, Al-Hashmi Travel and Tours, Hajj Umrah Services are also being tried before the trial Court in FIR. No.299 of 2017, and have allegedly committed cheating and defrauded innocent people at large on the pretext of providing them with Visas for performing Hajj.
Such offences have been increasing day by day which has badly affected our society and this is the time to curb such type of offences with iron hands. It is argued by the learned counsel for the applicant/accused that punishment of the offences for which the applicant/accused has been booked does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Cr.P.C. therefore, he was of the view that in such circumstances the applicant/ accused is entitle for bail. Reverting to the contention as raised by the learned counsel for the applicant, it is suffice to say that in criminal administration of justice, each case has to be decided on its own facts and circumstances and Courts are required to exercise its jurisdiction independently . As observed above, the applicant/accused is involved in a case of serious and heinous in nature. He has committed forgery/cheating and taken the law in his own hands and present case indeed appears to effect public at large and qualifies to be treated as an exceptional circumstances, therefore, merely because the offences for which the punishment was not for death or imprisonment of life or ten years is no ground for grant of bail in each and every case. In this connection, I am also fortified with the cases of Imtiaz Ahmed and another v. The State reported as PLD 1997 SC 545, Muhammad Siddique v. Imtiaz Begum and 2 others reported as 2002 SCMR 442 and Muhammad Siddiq Awan v. The State reported as 2003 PCr.LJ 890. In the case of Muhammad Siddique v. Imtiaz Begum and 2 others reported as 2002 SCMR 442, it has been observed as under:- "Ss. 497 & 498---Bail in non- bailable offences---None can claim bail as of right in non-bailable offences even though the same do not fall under the prohibitory clause of 5.497, Cr .P.C. "
8. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case and the cited case laws, the applicant/accused has failed to make out his case for bail. I, accordingly , dismissed the instant bail application. Since the accused is behind the bar since his arrest, therefore,. trial Court is directed to 'proceed the case expeditiously and decide the same as early as possible, preferably , within a period of six months, after receipt of this order and no unnecessary adjournment shall be granted to either side, so also compliance report be submitted to this Court through MIT-II.
The case laws cited by the counsel for the applicant/accused have been perused and considered by me, but did not find applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case, therefore, the same are not helpful for him.