ANAYAT MASIH and others vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a petition for pre-arrest bail filed by the petitioners in connection with F.I.R. No. 82 of 2004, registered under sections 17 and 22 of the Emigration Ordinance, 1979. The petitioners were accused of deceitfully obtaining money from the complainant under the false pretext of facilitating foreign employment for his relatives, a commitment they allegedly failed to honor. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to pre-arrest bail given the six-year delay in lodging the F.I.R. and the alleged lack of evidence regarding the payment. The Court dismissed the petition, holding that the delay in lodging the F.I.R. was adequately explained by the complainant's ongoing efforts to recover the funds through other sources. Furthermore, the Court found that witness statements recorded under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 corroborated the payment, and the petitioners were required for the recovery of case property. The Court affirmed that in the absence of demonstrated mala fide on the part of the prosecution, pre-arrest bail is not warranted when evidence exists linking the accused to the offense.
- Does a delay in lodging an F.I.R. automatically entitle an accused to pre-arrest bail?
- Can pre-arrest bail be denied when the accused is required for the recovery of case property?
- Is a delay in lodging an F.I.R. excusable if the complainant was attempting to resolve the matter through other means?
- Section 17, Emigration Ordinance 1979
- Section 22, Emigration Ordinance 1979
- Section 161, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' Petitioners seek pre-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No, 82 of 2004, dated 22-2-2004 registered under sections 17/22 of Emigration Ordinance, 1979 at Police Station F.I.A., P.C. Lahore.
2. In brief the allegation against the petitioners is that they had deceitfully received Rs,5,00,000 from the complainant Capt. Farrukh Afzal on the pretext of sending his son Kamran and his relative Sohail abroad for employment. Allegedly, the said commitment was not honoured nor the amount has been returned to the complainant.
3. Bail is sought on the grounds that petitioners have been falsely involved in this case; they never received any money from the complainant as alleged in the F.I.R.; there is no witness of the payment of disputed amount to the petitioners and it is a case of no evidence; allegedly, the occurrence took place in the year 1999 but the F.I.R. Was registered in the year 2004 i.e, after the delay of six years and that this delay in lodging the F.I.R. Is sufficient to bring the case of the petitioners within the fold of further inquiry entitling them to the concession of bail. Conversely, learned ' counsel for the State as well as complainant vehemently opposed the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners.
3. Heard. File perused.
4. As far the delay in lodging the F.I.R. Is concerned, record of this case clearly indicates that complainant had been making efforts to get the money back though different sources and in the circumstances this delay is of no significance. Record of this case also reveals that the disputed amount was paid to the petitioners in the house of complainant in the presence of Shahid, Sajeel and Kamran. The said witnesses while making statements under section 161, Cr.P.C. Have specifically stated in this regard. The petitioners are also very much required for the recovery of case property. Similarly, the learned counsel has failed to show any mala fide on the part of prosecution for the false involvement of the petitioners in this case. In the light of data available on the record, I see no force in this petition the same stands dismissed.