Find a Lawyer

Criminal Miscellaneous No. 486‑B of 1986 decided on 1st March, 1986.

‑‑‑S. 17/22‑‑Passports Act (XX of 1974), S. 6‑‑Accused admitted to ad interim pre‑arrest bail under specific direction to join investigation‑ Accused having never pined investigation, such ground alone, held, was sufficient to recall interim order of pre‑arrest bail.

Ehsanullah Khan for the Petitioner.

Farooq Bedar A.A.‑G. for the State.

Date of hearing: 1st March, 1986.

On 8-12‑1985, F.I.R. was lodged at Police Station F.I.A. Passport Cell, Lahore, under section 17/22 of the Emigration Ordinance, 1979 and section 6 of the Passport Act by Muhammad Jamil. It was alleged in the report that a total sum of Rs.1,85,000 was obtained by Mashhood Ahmed from different persons on the pretext that they would be sent overseas. Three persons Mashhood Ahmed, Waqar Azim and Riffat Mehmood were involved in this transaction. Waqar Azim and Riffat Mehmood are real brothers. Mashhood Ahmed is their brother‑in‑law. Pending investigation of this case Mashhood Ahmed died. Riffat Mehmood was admitted to bail by the Special Judge after arrest. Waqar Azim was admitted to interim pre‑arrest bail by the Special Judge (C), Lahore, which later on was withdrawn by order; dated 18‑2‑1986. Thereafter he came to this Court. A learned Judge of this Court admitted him to ad interim pre‑arrest bail and gave specific order that he shall join investigation and would appear before this Court on every date of hearing. As the learned Judge who allowed interim bail is not available at Principal seat, the matter has come up before me.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner at some length whose main emphasis was that according to the prosecution it was Mashhood Ahmed who was the person responsible for extorting money from different persons. The deceased had formed a firm with Muhammad Jamil who according to the learned counsel is first informant and if anything was done that was by the two i.e. Muhammad Jamil and Mashhood Ahmed, The petitioner had nothing to do with the alleged transaction. Learned counsel further submitted that a sum of Rs.35,000 has been returned to different persons.

The A.A. ‑G. opposed bail.

3. I asked S.I., F.I.A., who has brought the record as to whether the petitioner had joined investigation. He submitted that the petitioner never pined the investigation. This ground alone, is sufficient to recall the interim order of pre‑arrest bail. Even on merits the petitioner is not entitled to this concession because of .his implication in the alleged transaction.

4. I therefore, recall the order, dated 19‑2‑1986, whereby the petitioner was admitted to ad interim pre‑arrest bail and order that he shall be arrested and sent to prison forthwith.

S. A. Petition dismissed

Find a Lawyer Near You

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