Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
Criminal Miscellaneous No. 277/B of 1982, decided on 12th September, 1982.
-- S. 497-Bail, grant of-Petitioner charged for offence of obtaining money and other travelling documents from P. Ws. for arranging employment for them in foreign countries but eventually depriving them of their money and documents-During investigation such affected P. Ws. however, not naming petitioner as person who either received money or document direct from them-Petitioner allowed bail, in circumstances.
S. M. Ghazi for Petitioners.
Br. G. S. Khan for the State.
Date of hearing :12th September, 1982.
The petitioners seek bail in case F. 1. R. No. 10 dated 2nd March, 1982 registered at Police Station Pind Dadan Khan, under section 420/ 406, P. P. C. During investigation, however, sections 18 and 22 of the immigration Ordinance, 1979 were also added.
2. The allegations briefly are that the petitioners induced the complainant that they will arrange service in the foreign countries to persons who pay Rs. 14,000 each through him, as a result the complainant collected Rs. 58,500 from six persons including his son and handed over the money to the petitioners. The Passports and Identification cards of these persons were also handed over to the petitioners. However, the petitioners made no arrangement for employment of any person and on demand the petitioners failed to return the money and the documents, as a result of which the case was registered.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that there is no allegation that the petitioners ever induced the six persons to pay money to the complainant including complainant's son, nor they ever induced them to hand over their Passports and Identification cards. He has also argued that the provisions of sections 18 and 22 to the Immig ration Ordinance, 1979 are not attracted to the facts of the present case. Lastly, he has submitted that Nazir petitioner is in jail since five months and petitioner Sardara is in jail since six months and in spite of that challan has not been submitted.
4. The learned counsel for the State has controverted these arguments. It is contended that the five persons from whom money was obtained had stated during investigation that the money and the Passports etc. were handed over by Nur Muhammad complainant in their presence to the petitioners. It is argued that the provisions of section 18 of the Immigra tion Ordinance are fully attracted to the present case.
5. I have considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the police file. Allah Din, one of the five persons, have not made any statement regarding payment of the money and handing over of the documents by the complainant to the petitioners in his presence. The other four persons though have stated that the money and the documents were handed over but the complainant to Nazir etc. but none of them has specifically stated that the money or the documents were handed over by the complainant to Sardara petitioner. Both the petitioners are stated to be real brothers. It hardly seems to be reasonable to believe that both the brothers should be present to receive the money with ulterior motive. This observation may not be considered to have any bearing on the case but non-mentioning of Sardara by the P. Ws. specifically as a person who received the money from the complainant is a factor which puts one on guard to consider whether any reasonable ground appear that he had participated in any offence punishable with life imprisonment. In the circumstances, I feel inclined to exercise my discretion m favour of Sardara petitioner. He shall be released on bail provided he furnishes a bail bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000 (Fifty thousand A only) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Assistant Commissioner, Pind Dadan Khan.
The case of Nazir petitioner, however, stands on different footing. The persons from whom Nur Muhammad complainant had collected the money and the documents had clearly stated that the money and the documents were passed on by the complainant to Nazir petitioner in their presence. No case for bail is, therefore, made out at the present stage so far as he is concerned. The bail petition of Nazir Ahmad is, therefore, dismissed.
Petition dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer