Find a Lawyer

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 allegedly taking money from four persons for sending them abroad‑‑Three out of four persons settling accounts with accused‑ Offence imputed, not coming within prohibitory clause‑‑Bail allowed in circumstances.

Arshad Mahmood v. The State 1985 P Cr. L J 2048 and Muhammad Riaz v. The State 1984 P Cr. L J 2463 ref.

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 statements 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‑25/L Bail allowed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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