Muhammad Ejaz Vs The State

I

PES I IAWAR I IIG II COU RT AB BOTTABA I)

BIi,\('II

JUDIC IAL D I:, PARTMI,,NT

JUDGMENT SHEIJT

Cr. M (Bail) No. 600-A/2022.

Date of hearing 13.10.2022.

Petitioner/s (Muhammad Eja) by Mr. Fazullah Khan, Advocate.

Respondent/s the State) by Syed Shahid Mehboob, Assistant Attorney General with Haseeb Jamal SI (1,-lA) and complainant by Mr. Bilal Zaman Kiyani, Advocate.

FAZAL SUI}HAN ,t. Accuscd/petitioner Muhammad Ljaz Saeed seeks his relcase on bail in case FIR No. 2112022 dated:

27.01.2022 under scctions 109 PPC. 22

(B)of Emigration Ac1 read with scction q 3,6 PSMA, registered at Police Station, FIA/C. C, District, A b hotta b ad.

2.Complainant/Mst. Sughra Bibi reported the matter 1o the local policc that her son namely Faizan Ahmad met with some unknown agents who offer him a -l-hat Candian visa. hcr son was scnt to lran by thc human lraffickers/smugglers

to further send him to Canada, but in Iran those traffickers/smugglers detained him and asked from his family for ransom of Rs. 700,000/- through telephone number 00989316048842 (Iran dialing code through call) and +0306985069280 (Greece dialing codc through whalsup).

Family deposited Rs. 100,000/- into the account of Muhammad ljaz son ol Ghulam Fareed account 0291- 0010047743850018 (Allied llank Bahawalpur). 'l-hat human

traffickers/smugglers gave threats to his family that they will kill victim if they do not arrange the remaining amount so.

a Complainant also alleged that human traffickers threatened that they would kill the victim in case the further payment is not made. She produced the deposit slips and call recording bcfore the F'IA authorities, therefore, the instant [rll{ was registered.

J

3.Arguments of learned counsel for petitioner, complainant as well as learned AAG hcard and record perused.

4.From the record, it is clear that the complainant Mst. Sughran widow of Muhammad Mushtaq has directly named the petitioner in her reporl for alluring her son on the pretext of sending him to Canada (foreign country). 'Ihc petitioncr contacted the complainant and demanded Rs. 36,00,000/-, however, she being poor lady, only managed to arrangc I{s 1,00,000/-, which were transferred to his account, and the bank statement availablc on file confirms the rcceipt of said a amount and its withdrawal. The whereabouts of the son of complainant are not known whercas, through a viral video available in I-ISB, the son ol complainant is in custody of the person connected with the petitioner. CDIt available on file shows the contacts of petitioner with one Mst. Kausar Parveen, a member of gang. lt is argued that now

ransom has been demanded through Mst.

Kausar Parveen for the relcase of son of complainant and therefore, section 365-A I)PC is attractcd to thc case,

5.For the time being, scction 365-A PPC is not applicd to the casc, however, section 22 (b) of the Ilmigration Ordinance, 1979 has been applied, which provides punishment of 14 years with fine, hence, it falls within thc prohibitory clause of section 491 Cr. P.C. Similarly, section 3/6 of Prevention of Smuggling ol Migrants Ac1, also providcs 14 years' punishment, hence, from tentative assessment of rccord, petitioncr is prima facie connected with a crimc, which falls within the prohibitory clausc of section 497 Cr. P. C and thereforc, hc is not found to be entitled for grant of bail' I{esultantly, this petition is dismissed.

Announcetl.

'lahir P/Secrelary tr*-o

JUDGE