Case Details

Citation(s)
2015 SLG 1588 2015 SLD 1588 2015 PCRLJ 478
Peshawar High Court
Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No.2083-P of 2014, decision dated: 29-12-2014
QALANDAR ALI KHAN, J
Arshad Hussain Yusafzai for Petitioner. Abdul Latif Khan for the State

NISAR AHMAD-

VS

The STATE

Law:

Section:

Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)-------S. 497---Foreign Exchange Regulation Act (VII of 1947), Ss. 4 & 23---Unauthorized dealing in foreign currency---Bail, grant of---Offence with which accused was charged carried maximum imprisonment of two years' or fine or both---Accused was entitled to the concession of bail as of right---Refusal of bail to accused, and his remaining in jail as a consequence thereof, would amount to double jeopardy---Accused was also entitled for bail on the ground that offence against accused fell outside the scope of prohibited clause contained in S. 497, Cr.P.C., notwithstanding the fact that mandatory provision of law contained in Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947 in respect of search and recovery had, apparently, not been complied with---Accused was admitted to bail, in circumstances. 2000 MLD 357; PLD 1993 Pesh. 104; 2000 PCr.LJ 1914; 2012 PCr.LJ 1858 and 2013 PCr.LJ 1865 ref. ORDER QALANDAR ALI KHAN, J.---Nisar Ahmad, petitioner, has been arrested in case FIR No. 51 dated 10-1-.2014 under sections 4/23, F.E.R., Act 1947, P.S. FIA/CBC, Peshawar, by Muhammad Amin Sub-Inspector FIA/CBC, Peshawar for unauthorizely dealing in foreign currency after a test purchase was conducted in the Shah Sons Trader and Electronics Shop situated in main bazaar, Swat. The raid also led to the recovery of foreign currency of different countries along with Pakistani currency amounting to Rs. 40,30,000 and other documents showing business of dealing in foreign currency by the accused/petitioner in the said shop. The accused/petitioner remained unsuccessful to secure post arrest bail from the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-I/Judge, Special Court, Peshawar, therefore, approached this court for bail. The learned counsel for the accused/petitioner, mainly, questioned the mode of raid and recovery, which, according to him, were in clear violation of mandatory provisions of law, as neither search warrant was obtained prior to the raid nor independent witnesses from the public were associated with search and recovery, thereby vitiating the whole process. While challenging test purchase by the raiding party headed by the complainant, the…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492