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. 199/B of 1987, decided on 3rd March, 1987.
‑‑S. 497‑‑Emigration Ordinance (XVIII of 1979), Ss. 13 & 22‑‑Passports Act (XX of 1974), S. 6‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑Accused allegedly receiving huge money from different persons for sending them abroad but failing to do so‑‑Accused under arrest for last about six months‑‑No recovery of money or any document effected from him‑‑Person of accused no longer required by police‑ ‑Co‑accused already on bail‑‑Case found to be of further inquiry‑‑Bail granted in circumstances.
Syed Nasim‑ul‑Hasnain Tirmzi for Petitioner.
Sardar Muhammad Khurshid for the State.
Muhammad Anwar Rahi petitioner alongwith Mian Javaid Akhtar stands challaned in a case under section 13/22 of the Emigration Ordinance, 1979 read with section 6 of the Passports Act of the allegation of receiving Rs. 89,000 from Hafeez‑ul‑Haq, Mirza, Jamil Baig, Muhammad Din and others on the promise of sending them abroad but failed to do so. He is stated to be under arrest since 3‑9‑1986. He had applied for bail to the learned Special Judge (Central) who dismissed his application stating that the prosecution appeared to have some documentary evidence to connect him with the commission of the offences. His application was also dismissed by this Court on 23‑12‑1986. He was permitted to apply again if the challan was not submitted at an early date. He has applied again for bail inter alia on the grounds that no proceedings have yet commenced in the case because of the late submission of the challan. No documentary evidence is available against the petitioner, no document or money was recovered from his possession. Further, that Muhammad Din one of the affected person has sworn an affidavit to the effect that he had not paid anything to the petitioner for obtaining visas and that Mirza Jamil Baig had got this case registered against the petitioner on his refusal to give the hand of his daughter in marriage to him.
The Investigating Officer confirms that no recovery of money or any documents has been effected from the petitioner. He states that his presence is no loner required by him. It is further stated that Mian Javaid Akhtar co‑accused is already on bail.
2. Keeping in view, the circumstances discussed above, it appears to be a case of further inquiry. Accordingly, I admit the petitioner to bail in the sum of Rs. 25,000 with two sureties in the like amount to the, satisfaction of the trial Court.
S.A./M‑68/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