Sufi MUHAMMAD ASLAM vs SADIQ ALI KHAN and another
This matter arises from a petition seeking the cancellation of bail granted to the respondent by the Special Judge, Central, Lahore in a case registered under the Emigration Ordinance 1979. The core legal question concerns whether sufficient grounds existed for the cancellation of bail where the respondent was alleged to have been present while a co-accused deceitfully received funds from the complainant. The Lahore High Court held that bail would not be cancelled, noting that the investigation revealed no recovery from the respondent, witness statements indicated he did not receive the money, and the investigation as to him was complete. The key principle laid down is that in the absence of incriminating recoveries or direct receipt of funds, and where custodial interrogation is no longer required, bail granted by a lower court will not be interfered with.
- Whether bail can be cancelled when no recovery has been made from the accused during investigation?
- Does mere presence of an accused at the time a co-accused receives funds constitute sufficient ground to cancel bail?
- Will a bail petition be dismissed if the investigation against the accused is complete and custodial interrogation is no longer required?
- Section 17/22, Emigration Ordinance 1979
ORDER
' Petitioner seeks cancellation of bail of respondent Sadiq All Khan allowed to him by Special Judge, Central, Lahore in case F,I,R, No,62-C of 2003 dated 14-2-2003 registered under section 17/22 of Emigration Ordinance 1979, at Police Station FIA, Passport Circle, Lahore on the grounds that the respondent along with his co-accused namely Sufi Muhammad Amin had deceitfully received a huge amount of Rs.28,00,000 from the complainant for sending 15 intending emigrants to abroad for the purpose of employment.
2. Record of this case reveals that during investigation nothing was recovered from the respondent.
From the statement of witnesses it is clear that the amount was never received by the respondent and the only allegation against him is that at the relevant time, when his co-accused received the amount, he remained present with him. Investigation to the extent of respondent is almost complete and he is no more required for the said purpose. In this view of the matter, I am not persuaded to entertain this petition and the same stands dismissed.