MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE vs THE STATE
This is a second application for post-arrest bail regarding an offense registered under Sections 17 and 22 of the Emigration Ordinance, 1979 at Police Station F.I.A., Passport Circle, Lahore. The petitioner’s initial bail application had been dismissed as withdrawn. The core legal question was whether new material, specifically a prosecution witness's statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 exonerating the petitioner, constituted sufficient grounds for grant of bail upon further inquiry. The High Court observed that the witness explicitly stated the petitioner never received money or travel documents from the complainant in his presence. The Court held that this exonerating statement prima facie brought the case within the ambit of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. Consequently, the High Court allowed the petition and granted post-arrest bail subject to the petitioner furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 100,000 with one surety.
- Does a prosecution witness's exonerating statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. bring a case within the scope of further inquiry for post-arrest bail?
- Can a second post-arrest bail application be allowed based on new evidence following the withdrawal of a previous bail application?
- Section 17, Emigration Ordinance 1979
- Section 22, Emigration Ordinance 1979
- Section 164, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' This is second application for the grant of post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No,316 dated 3-4-2004 for the offences under sections 17/22 of Emigration Ordinance, 1979 registered at Police Station F.I.A., Passport Circle, Lahore. The first bail application of the petitioner was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 24-6-2004. This second application has been filed on the ground that one of the prosecution witnesses namely Rehmat Ali son of Muhammad Ali has made a statement under section 164, Cr.P.C. Stating therein that petitioner never received any amount or the travelling documents from the complainant as alleged in the F.I.R., in his presence (photo copy of the statement under section 164, Cr.P.C. Has been placed on the record).
2. Neither the counsel for F.I.A. Authorities is in attendance nor the record of the case has been produced by the agency.
3. Be that as it may, in the light of the statement made by Rehmat Ali (prosecution witness) exonerating the petitioner, prima facie the case against the petitioner falls within the fold of further inquiry entitling him to the concession of bail. Accordingly this petition is allowed, petitioner is admitted to bail provided he furnishes bail bonds in the sum of Rs,1,00,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.