Find a Lawyer

Criminal Miscellaneous No. 2084 of 1982, decided on 9th June, 1983.

--S.497/498--Passports Act (XX of 1974), S.6--Emigration Ordinance (XVIII of 1979), S. 17/22--Bail--Accused charged with cheating certain persons and obtaining money from them on promise to arrange their departure abroad and get them employed there--Absence of independent witnesses and material available with Investigating Officer making case as of further inquiry as to guilt of accused and to attract provision of subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C.--Bail granted.

Muhammad Bashir for Petitioner. Muhammad Abdul Rashid for the State.

According to a case registered by Habib Ahmad, S.I., F.I.A., Lahore vide F.I.R. No.24, dated 2-2-1982 against the petitioner under section 6 of the Passport Act and under section 17/22 of the migration Ordinance, 1979, the petitioner is accused of having ,-iV(],J Rs.76,000 from five persons namely, Mushtaq Ahmad, Muhammad Salim, Muhammad Afzal, Muhammad Yousaf and Faqir Muhammad alongwith their passports by way of cheating on a promise that he would make an arrangement for sending them to Saudi Arabia and get them employed there. After having received the above-said money and the passports the petitioner did not do anything towards the performance of his promise. It is alleged in the F.I.R. that he was not a regular recruiting agent. His main intention was only to cheat.

2. The petitioner was refused bail by the learned Special Judge (Central), Lahore vide his order, dated 9-8-1982.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the above-said case was registered after one year of the alleged incident. During the investigation when the petitioner was on remand neither any money nor the alleged passports were recovered from him. The learned counsel has next maintained that apart from the statements of the above said persons there is no material to support the prosecution case since none has been cited as a witness before whom the alleged money or the passports were passed. The main ground on which the learned Special Judge refused bail to the petitioner that such cases had become a common occurrence is not applicable to the present case as a general rule.

4. The learned counsel for the State has opposed the grant of bail to the petitioner on the ground that it is a case of clear-cut cheating. He has further submitted that before the petitioner was arrested he had returned to the above-said persons Rs.17,700 and yet the amount of Rs.58,300 is outstanding.

5. In view of the facts stated in the F.I.R. the material which the Investigating Officer has shown and in the absence of independent witnesses it is a case of further inquiry as to the guilt of the petitioner so as to attract the provisions of subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. therefore, the interim bail already granted to the petitioner is hereby confirmed with a modification as to the amount of the bail bond which is enhanced from Rs.10,000 to Rs.25,000 so the petitioner is to furnish fresh bail bond in the sum of Rs.25,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Assistant Commissioner, Lahore.

M.Y.H. Bail confirmed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.