ORDER SHEET
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Date Order
with signature of Judge
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DATE OF HEARING 09.07.2013
Mr. Aamir Mansoob Qureshi Advocate for the
Applicant.
Mr. Wali Mohammad Jamali
Standing Counsel.
Mr. Syed Israr Ali, Addl. Director Law, FIA.
Mr. Saeed Memon, Additional Director FIA.
Syed Zia Rizvi, SHO (I.O.), FIA, Karachi.
Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi J; After
rejection of the bail applications by the Sessions Judge, Malir in Criminal
Bail Application No.107/2013 and by Ist Judicial Magistrate, Malir in Criminal
Bail Application No.08/2013 the applicant/accused approached to this Court for
grant of bail.
2. Brief
facts of the case are that on 28.01.2013 FIR No.26/2013 was registered at P.S.
FIA, A.H.T Circle, Karachi under section 419, 420, 109 PPC
r/w section 3, 4 and 6(1) of Passport Act, 1974. Against
the accused Shahrukh Sikandar and others when the Shahrukh Sikandar left the
country to UAE. Applicant was not nominated in the FIR but he was
arrested after registration of the FIR on the charge of abatement and his name
was mentioned in the final charge-sheet submitted on 16.3.2013 in the Court of
Ist Judicial Magistrate, Malir, Karachi.
3. Learned
Counsel for the Applicant contended that the Applicant is serving in Jeri
Danata Services Company being agents of Emirates Airline to its passengers at
the Airport. Learned Counsel for the Applicant submitted that the Applicant has
a very limited object of issuing boarding pass only to the passenger coming to
his booth with air ticket and passport. The function and duty of the FIA and
immigration authorities is to check and verify the passengers departing from
the Airport and to check their passport and other relevant documents.
Investigating Officer has falsely implicated and involved the Applicant, who is
absolutely innocent and was discharging his duties in accordance with law.
Learned Counsel for the Applicant urged that nothing has been found against the
Applicant from the record of Call Data and the role of the Applicant alleged in
the charge sheet is of abatement based on hardship and surmises. Learned
Counsel for the Applicant further submitted that Sohail Ahmed, who allegedly
issued tickets has already been granted bail by this Court in Criminal Bail
Application No.425/2013 vide order dated 28.6.2013 and the case of the
Applicant is on better footings then the case of Sohail Ahmed therefore,
following the rule of consistency present Applicant is also entitled for grant
of bail. Learned Counsel for the Applicant further argued that final
charge-sheet has already been submitted in the Trial Court and as such there is
no possibility of tempering with the prosecution evidence.
4. Mr. Wali
Muhammad Jamari learned Standing Counsel alongwith Syed Israr Ahmed Additional
Director Law, FIA and other FIA officials present in Court at the time of
hearing opposed the grant of bail to the present Applicant only for the reason
that the charge of abatement is on the Applicant and sufficient material is
available against the Applicant which connects him in the present case.
5. I have
heard Mr. Aamir Mansoob Qureshi Advocate for the Applicant, Mr. Wali Mohammad
Jamari learned Standing Counsel and perused the material available on record
with their assistance
6. On tentative assessment
it transpired that initially applicant was not nominated in the FIR. Role
assigned to the Applicant is only of abatement but no direct/ocular evidence is
available against the applicant with the prosecution. Applicant did not issue
e-ticket to the main accused Shahrukh Jatoi however,
the allegation levelled against the applicant is issuance of boarding card on
the basis of e-ticket already issued to the Shahrukh Jatoi. Co-accused
Sohail Ahmed who had issued e-ticket to the main accused, has already been
granted bail in Cr. Bail Application No.425/2013 by this Court as stated above.
Rule of consistency always taken into consideration by the Courts because a
person cannot be denied bail whose case is at par with an accused, who is already released on bail. Hence, following the rule
of consistency, the Applicant is also entitled for grant of bail. Applicant is
behind the bars for about seven months. Final charge-sheet has already been
submitted and investigation has been completed. Case against the Applicant is
based on documentary evidence which are already in
possession of the prosecution as such there is no possibilities of tempering
with the prosecution evidence.
7. Above are the reasons of
short order dated 09.07.2013 whereby Applicant was granted bail on furnishing
solvent surety in the sum of Rs.500,000/- (Rupees Five Lacs only) to the
satisfaction of the Trial Court.
8. The observations made
are of tentative nature and the Trial Court shall not be influenced by any of
such observations.
Karachi J
U D G E
Dated:_________________