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. 85/13 of 1987, decided on 18th February, 1987.
‑‑Ss. 497 &498‑‑Emigration Ordinance (XVIII of 1979), Ss. 17, 18 & 22‑ Passports Act (XX of 1974), S. 6‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑Accused extracting money from 13 persons on pretext of sending them abroad for employment‑‑Three other cases registered against accused on similar allegations‑‑Mentioning of incorrect amount in order by trial Judge and offence not falling under prohibitory clause of S. 497(1)(a), held, would not entitle accused to bail in view of his conduct‑ Bail mused m circumstances.
Iqbal Ahmad for Petitioner.
Allegation against Israr Ahmad petitioner is that he extracted Rs. 1,53,000 from 13 persons from Azad Kashmir on the pretext of sending them abroad in connection with employment.
After arrest he applied for bail to the Special Judge (Central), Rawalpindi, which was dismissed on 2‑2‑1987. Hence this petition.
Learned counsel submits that no recovery was effected from the petitioner. The amount mentioned in the F.I.R. was Rs. 1,53,000. For reasons not known to the petitioner the learned Judge while dealing with the bail of the petitioner enhanced the amount to Rs. 2,65,000.
It is further submitted that the case against the petitioner does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497(1)(a), Cr.P.C. Hence he is entitled to the concession of bail.
I have considered these points. It is evident from the opening sentence of F.I.R. that during enquiry No. P.C. 113 of 1986 Passport Cell F.I.A., it transpired that accused Israr Ahmad took Rs. 1,53,000 from 13 persons of Azad Kashmir on the pretext of sending them abroad in connection with employment.
Three other cases have also been registered against the petitioner, where the allegation was to the same effect, which was that he took Rs. 7 lac from 100 persons on the pretext that they shall be sent abroad for employment.
The fact that the amount mentioned in the F.I.R. was Rs.1,53,000 but it was wrongly mentioned as Rs.2,65,000 by the trial Judge would not entitle him to bail.
Similarly, the contention of the learned counsel that the case does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497(1)(a), Cr.P.C. does not entitle the petitioner to bail in view of his conduct.
There is no merit in this petition.
S.A./I‑5/L Bail refused.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer