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. 112/ B of 1987, decided on 3rd February, 1987.
‑‑‑S. 497‑‑Emigration Ordinance (XVIII of 1979), Ss. 17 & 22‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑Accused receiving money from four persons on pretext of sending them to Denmark but after taking them to Maldeep Island, disappeared‑‑Accused settling accounts with three out of four persons‑ Offence imputed to accused not falling under prohibitory clause‑‑ Discretion, held, could be exercised in favour of accused‑‑Bail granted in circumstances.
Wafadar Khan for Petitioner.
Abdul Majid for the State.
This is a petition under section 497/498 Cr.P.C. by Gulzar Hussain, petitioner, for bail in respect of a case instituted against him under section 17/22 of the Emigration Ordinance, 1979 registered at Police Station F.I.A., Lahore, on 20‑2‑1985.
2. The prosecution case against the petitioner is that he took money from four persons on the pretext of sending them to Denmark for employment, but then took them to Maldeep Islands and there, having left them, disappeared.
3. During investigation three of the four persons gave statements before the Investigating Officer confirming that they had settled the matter with the petitioner. However, Ansar Iqbal P. W. alone remains in the field, who was allegedly cheated and defrauded by the petitioner.
4. During investigation the petitioner absconded and was not arrested till 6‑11‑1986, when his petition for pre‑arrest bail was dismissed.
5. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the State and have perused the police file. On behalf of the petitioner it is submitted that after 7‑7‑1985, when the statement of three of the four persons alleged to have been‑deceived were recorded, he was informed by the Investigating Officer that whenever further required, he would be called, and he did not come to know till November 1986 that he was required and involved in the case, whereupon he applied for pre‑arrest bail, which petition was dismissed. The offences imputed to the petitioner do not come within the prohibitory clause. See Arshad Mahmood v. The State 1985 P Cr. L J 2048 and Muhammad Riaz v. State 1984 P Cr. L J 2463. The petitioner has already settled the accounts with three of the four persons alleged to have been defrauded. Subject to imposing proper security, I would exercise my discretion and release the petitioner on bail.
6. For the foregoing reasons, this petition is accepted and Gulzar Hussain, petitioner, is released on bail, subject to his furnishing security in the sum of Rupees fifty thousand (Rs.50,000) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Special Judge (Central), Lahore.
S. A./G‑9/L Bail granted.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer