MUHAMMAD ARSHAD vs THE STATE
The petitioner, Muhammad Arshad, sought post-arrest bail in a case registered under the Emigration Ordinance, 1979 and the Prevention and Control of Human Trafficking Ordinance, 2002, concerning allegations of receiving money from a complainant to facilitate illegal employment abroad, which resulted in the complainant's deportation. The petitioner's initial bail application before the Special Judge (Central) was dismissed, and a subsequent application before the High Court was withdrawn. Upon the petitioner's renewed application, he offered to deposit a portion of the disputed amount with the trial court as a condition for bail. The State, represented by the Standing Counsel, did not oppose the bail application provided the deposit was made. Upon confirmation that the petitioner had deposited the sum of Rs. 80,000 with the trial court, the High Court allowed the petition. The Court held that, given the petitioner's willingness to deposit the disputed funds and the State's lack of opposition, the petitioner was entitled to post-arrest bail, subject to the furnishing of bail bonds to the satisfaction of the trial court.
- Can a court grant post-arrest bail where the accused offers to deposit the disputed amount with the trial court?
- Does the lack of opposition by the State to a bail application influence the court's decision to grant relief?
- Section 17, Emigration Ordinance 1979
- Section 22, Emigration Ordinance 1979
- Section 3, Prevention and Control of Human Trafficking Ordinance 2002
- Section 4, Prevention and Control of Human Trafficking Ordinance 2002
ORDER
' M. BILAL KHAN, J.---Muhammad Arshad son of Atta Muhammad the petitioner, seeks post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No,360 of 2005 dated 25-8-2005, registered at Police Station F.I.A. (PC), Gujranwala, for offences under section 17/22 of the Emigration Ordinance, 1979 read with section 3/4 of the Prevention and Control of Human Trafficking Ordinance, 2002.
2. The allegation against the petitioner was that he had received an amount of Rs,1,60,000 from Mazhar Hussain resident of Kang District Gujrat for sending him abroad for employment. The said Mazhar Hussain had been sent to Italy where he along with other affectees was apprehended and deported to Pakistan. Resultantly the instant F.I.R. Had been recorded.
3. The petitioner's plea for post-arrest bail was turned down by the learned Special Judge (Central)
Lahore vide his order dated 14-12-2005. Thereafter he moved this Court by means of Criminal Miscellaneous No,760-B of 2006. However, on 9-3-2006 he withdrew the said bail application and has approached this Court again for bail. Hence this petition.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record.
5. On 25-4-2006 the petitioner made an offer that he was willing to deposit the amount of Rs,80,000 with the trial Court and the said amount would be payable to the complainant only subject to the decision of the case. The learned Standing Counsel submitted that if the said amount was deposited he would not seriously oppose the grant of bail to the petitioner.
6. Today I have been told by Ahmar Naeem Sandhu, S.-I., Police Station F.I.A./PC, Gujranwala that the amount in question has been deposited in the trial Court. The learned Standing Counsel for Government of Pakistan confirms this situation.
7. In this view of the matter, this petition is allowed and the petitioner is admitted to bail provided he furnishes bail bonds in the sum of Rs,100,000 (rupees on lac) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.