Date of hearing: 22.07.2009
Date of order: 23.07.2009
Applicant. Mst. Yasmin Ahmed through
Mr. Zaki Hussain Khaskheli, advocate _
Respondent. State through Mr. Ahmed Ali Shah,
Standing Counsel _
SALMAN ANSARI, J: This bail application has been moved on behalf of Applicant Mst. Yasmin Ahmed who was arrested in this case on 23.6.2009 on a complaint of one Ms. Nasima Aslam lodged through Sub-Inspector FIA Immigration (Arrival) JIAP, Karachi Hassan Askary.
2. The allegation is being that applicant being paternal aunt of victim Nasima Aslam taking her in Muscat where she was attempted to sell for an amount of Rs.3,00,000/= to one Babu @ Papu Tiger and upon her hue and cry at Muscat Nasima Aslam was taken to the Embassy of Pakistan at Muscat and the Enbassy Authorities sent Nasima Aslam back to Pakistan where a case under Section 3(i)(ii) & 4 of LIX Ordinance – 2002 (Prevention and Control of Human Trafficking Ordinance, 2002) was registered against applicant Mst. Yasmin Ahmed.
3.
It
is argued on behalf of the applicant that she being real paternal aunt could not indulge in such a heinous act as to the
sell her niece to foreigners, she was taken for the employment and no such act
had taken place as alleged. In fact she has spent money for the girl to travel
and work for her own benefit, the allegations are false. The applicant being
lady is entitled for benefit of 4th Proviso of Section 497 Cr.P.C.
and she may be released on bail. Learned counsel for applicant in support of
his arguments has placed reliance in Mst. Baboo Jana v. The
State (1990 P.Cr.L.J. 326), Muhammad Rafique v. The State ( P.Cr.L.J. 2119), Murad Ali Shah v. The State (2004
P.Cr.L.J. 925), Muhammad Hanif v. The State ( 2008 YLR 810), Chandi Ram v. Chairman NAB (2008 UC 920),
Muhammad Faiz v. The State (2008 P.Cr.L.J. 123), Naseer Ahmed
v. State (PLJ 2008 Cr. C (
4. Mr. Ahmed Ali Shah learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State has vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that victim girl was taken to a foreign country by her own paternal aunt where she was to be sold out for sexual purpose to foreigners and without any reason why victim will level such allegations against her own aunt with whom she is traveling abroad for the purpose of employment. An amount of Rs.95,500/= and 73/- Omani Riyals were also recovered from the applicant at Jinnah International Airport’s arrival at Karachi which shows that applicant was running such a business of sending/selling the innocent girls with pretext to employments, hence the offence being non-bailable. No concession be granted.
5. Having heard arguments of learned counsel for applicant, learned Standing Counsel and perused the material placed on record.
6. The punishment under Section 3(i)(ii) of the Prevention and Control of Human Trafficking Ordinance, 2002 is 14 years which shows that offence does fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497(1) Cr.P.C. Considering that the age of girl is shown to be 17 years at the time of her medical examination conducted after arrival at Karachi on 23.6.2009 and in Section 2(b) of the Prevention and Control of Human Trafficking Ordinance, 2002 a “Child” is any person who has not attained the age of 18 years, therefore, girl Nasima Aslam was a child at the time when she has been made victim of a heinous offence as alleged in the complaint and the 164 Cr. P.C. statement made by her before the concerned Magistrate.
7. Under such circumstances, with due respect to the case cited which for obvious reason that as yet period of 6 months have not lapsed so as to benefit the applicant under the 4th Proviso of Section 497 Cr.P.C the other citations for reasons as given above are not applicable to the facts of the present case. I, therefore, for the above reason reject the bail application with direction to the trial Court to examine the victim girl and other witnesses without any delay.
JUDGE