Sohaib Ali Hashmat vs State S — 2025 MLD 925 ISLAMABAD

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

Sohaib Ali Hashmat VS State S. 497(2)---Emigration Ordinance (XVIII of 1979), Ss. 18 & 22---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 489-F---Illegal immigration services, dishonestly issuing a cheque---Bail, grant of---Further inquiry---Allegation against the petitioner was that he extorted foreign currency from complainant's grandson in presence of witnesses to send him abroad on work visa without having any legal authorization---Later on, neither the petitioner sent the complainant's grandson abroad nor returned the money, rather he dishonestly issued a cheque amounting to Rs. 600,000/- which was dishonoured when presented for encashment in the concerned bank---Record showed that in the FIR no specific date had been mentioned on which the grandson of the complainant had given money to the petitioner for sending him abroad---Offences under Ss.18/22 of the Emigration Ordinance, 1979, for which the petitioners stood charged, were punishable with imprisonment for 14 years or with fine or with both---When a statute provided two punishments simultaneously for commission of an offence, then for the purpose of bail, the lesser punishment is considered by the Court---In case the prosecution succeeded in proving its case against the accused, then whether the Court would inflict him the maximum or the minimum sentence was a question which brought the petitioner's case within the ambit of further inquiry as there was no certainty that he would be awarded the term of imprisonment---Record showed that the petitioner returned an amount of Rs. 700,000/- to the complainant through two online transaction---In such backdrop, issuance of cheque in question within the meaning of S.489-F, P.P.C, was a matter which would be resolved by the Trial Court after having recourse to evidence---Cheque was admittedly a negotiable instrument falling within the domain of Order XXXVII of CPC and the criminal courts could not be used as tool for recovery in such like cases---Moreover, there was a considerable delay in lodging the FIR---For the recovery of an amount, law provided a separate remedy under the C.P.C.---Petitioner was behind the bars since his arrest---Investigation of the case was complete and physical custody of the petitioner was no more required by the police for the purpose of further investigation---Further incarceration of the petitioner would serve no useful purpose for the prosecution---Bail petition was allowed, in circumstances.

Sohaib Ali Hashmat vs State S — 2025 MLD 925 ISLAMABAD

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 MLD