Sheikh SHOAIB FAROOQ vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by the petitioner, Sheikh Shoaib Farooq, who was charged under sections 17 and 22 of the Emigration Ordinance, 1979, in connection with an F.I.R. registered at the F.I.A. Passport Circle, Lahore. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the evidence presented. The Court observed that the petitioner was specifically nominated in the F.I.R. as the sole perpetrator, and witnesses consistently implicated him. Furthermore, the petitioner's own counsel produced documents, including an agreement and a Federal Ombudsman order, wherein the petitioner admitted to receiving funds for the purpose of arranging foreign employment, thereby undermining his defense. The Court held that because the offence under section 22 of the Emigration Ordinance, 1979, falls within the prohibitory clause of section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and because there were reasonable grounds to believe the petitioner was guilty, the bail petition must be dismissed. The key principle is that where prima facie evidence exists and the offence falls within the prohibitory clause, bail should not be granted.
- Does an offence under section 22 of the Emigration Ordinance 1979 fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Can a bail petition be dismissed when the accused has admitted to receiving funds in related documentation?
- Is bail appropriate when the accused is specifically nominated in the F.I.R. and witnesses consistently implicate him?
- Section 17, Emigration Ordinance 1979
- Section 22, Emigration Ordinance 1979
- Section 497(1), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' Through this petition Sheikh Shoaib Farooq petitioner has sought post-arrest bail in case F.I.R.
No,C-138 of 2003 registered at Police Station F.I.A. Passport Circle, Lahore on 10-4-2003 for offences under sections 17/22 of the Emigration Ordinance, 1979.
2. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record it has been observed that the petitioner has been specifically nominated in the F.I.R. As the sole perpetrator of the alleged offences and definite allegations have been levelled against him therein. It is not disputed that the complainant as well as the other witnesses mentioned in the F.I.R. Have so far stood by their statements made before the Investigating Officer fully implicating the petitioner in the alleged offences. The learned counsel for the petitioner has remained unable to point out any background of or bitterness between the parties so as to prompt the complainant and his witnesses to falsely implicate the petitioner in a case of this nature. It is of some significance to mention here that the learned counsel for the petitioner has himself produced before this Court a copy of an agreement dated 20-11-2002 wherein the petitioner had accepted receiving the relevant amount from the complainant for arranging the sending of the complainant's nephew namely Ghulam Hussain abroad for employment and had also agreed to return the relevant amount to the complainant. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also produced before this Court a copy of an order passed by the Federal Ombudsman on 17-10-2002 which shows that the present petitioner had lodged a complaint against one Naveed Ahmad Qureshi and another before the Federal B Ombudsman and in that complaint too the petitioner had accepted receiving the relevant amount from the complainant for arranging the sending of his nephew abroad for employment. This apparently shows that the allegations levelled against the petitioner are not being denied by him and he is only trying to shift his liability to somebody else. An offence under section 22 of the Emigration Ordinance, 1979 attracts the prohibitory clause contained in subsection (1) of section 497, Cr.P.C. The petitioner has already been opined to be guilty in the inquiry and the investigation conducted in this case.
3. For what has been discussed above prima facie reasonable grounds exist to believe in the petitioner's involvement in the alleged offences and this petition is, therefore, dismissed.