ASIM WAQAR DOGAR vs THE STATE
This is a criminal petition filed by Asim Waqar Dogar seeking post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No. 489 registered under sections 17 and 22 of the Emigration Ordinance, 1979 at Police Station F.I.A., Passport Circle, Lahore. The core legal question was whether the petitioner made out a case for further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, given the lack of independent evidence, absence of recovery, and a background business dispute between the parties. The Lahore High Court held that the case called for further inquiry into the guilt of the petitioner as the allegations arose from a partnership dispute making false implication probable, and investigation was already complete with no requirement for physical custody. The court laid down the principle that where financial transactions occur amidst a dissolved partnership and lack independent corroboration or recovery, the matter falls within the ambit of further inquiry, entitling the accused to post-arrest bail.
- Does a background business dispute between the parties warrant further inquiry for the grant of post-arrest bail?
- Is post-arrest bail admissible under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when no recovery is made from the accused and investigation is complete?
- Whether oral statements of the complainant without independent corroboration are sufficient to deny post-arrest bail?
- Section 17, Emigration Ordinance 1979
- Section 22, Emigration Ordinance 1979
- Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' Through this petition Asim Waqar Dogar petitioner has sought post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No,489 registered at Police Station F.I.A., Passport Circle, Lahore on 7-10-2003 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 noticed that no independent evidence has been collected by the Investigating Agency in this case apart from mere oral statements of the complainant and his witnesses. Admittedly nothing had been recovered from the petitioner's possession during the investigation of this case. Paragraphs Nos.4 and 5 of the order, dated 21-1-2004 passed .By the learned Special Judge (Central), Lahore show that there was a background of a business dispute between the parties arising out of dissolution of a partnership. In that backdrop false implication of the petitioner may not be ruled out of consideration at such a stage. The investigation of this case has already been completed qua the petitioner and an incomplete challan has already been submitted before the learned trial Court and, thus, physical custody of the petitioner is no longer required at this stage for the purposes of investigation. It is interesting to mention here that the alleged payment of money had been made by the complainant to the petitioner on 5-12-2002 at .a time when the parties to this case were already engaged in winding up of their partnership on account of serious differences and, thus, handing over of a huge amount of money by the complainant to the petitioner at such a stage for sending the complainant abroad appears to be prima facie improbable. Be that as it may, the factual controversy between the parties requires elaborate evidence to be recorded by the learned trial Court in that regard and that stage has not so far arrived in this case.
3. For what has been discussed above the case against the petitioner calls for further inquiry into his guilt within the purview of subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. This petition is, therefore, allowed and the petitioner is admitted to bail subject to furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs,50, 000 (Rupees fifty thousand only) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.