Lawyers Directory Listing
Unlock direct contact details for up to 10 lawyers so you can call or WhatsApp the right legal professional and move your matter forward with confidence.
Criminal Miscellaneous No. 588‑B of 1982, decided on 30th May, 1982.
‑‑‑S. 497‑‑Passports Act (XX of 1974), S.6‑‑Emigration Ordinance (XVIII of 1979), S.18/22‑‑Accused persons only introduced complainant party to Travelling Agent who misrepresented himself to be Recruiting Agent‑ Complainant's loss made good by accused persons to some extent‑‑Bail granted.
Muhammad Akmal Saleemi for Petitioners.
Date of hearing: 30th May, 1982.
The petitioners have applied for the grant of bail as they stand arrested in case F.I.R. No. 17/82 registered at Police Station, F.I.A Multan under section 6 of the Passport Act read with section 18/22 of Immigration Ordinance, 1979. Their bail petition was earlier rejected by the Special Judge Central, vide his order, dated 27‑4-1982. Hence this petition.
2. The allegation against the petitioner are that they introduced Munir and Riaz P.Ws, to one Abdul Malik Travelling Agent for procuring employment visas for Saudi Arabia for them. On the assurance given by Abdul Malik the aforesaid persons had made a payment of about Rs.28,000 to him through the petitioners and in lieu thereof some forged visas were issued to the P.Ws. and as a result Riaz was returned by the authorities from Dubai Airport while Munir was sent back from Riyad (Saudi Arabia). The complainant party then asked the petitioners and Abdul Malik made good their loss. In a Panchayat held between the parties, the petitioners had paid about Rs.9,000 to the complainant party and the rest was to be paid by Abdul Malik who was the absconding earlier but has now been arrested.
3. From the material placed on record, it reveals that the petitioners had only introduced the complainant party to the Travelling Agent Abdul Malik who had misrepresented himself to be a Recruiting Agent. In these circumstances, I think it is Abdul Malik who is mainly to blame and against the petitioners appear to have made good the loss of the complainant party to some extent. I am, therefore, of the view that the petitioners have made out a good case for the grant of bail.
4. In view of the facts narrated above, I feel inclined to allow this petition. The petitioners are directed to be released on bail subject to their furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs. 20, 000 each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Deputy Registrar (Judicial) of this Court.
S.A./4342/L Bail allowed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer