MUHAMMAD IQBAL BHATTI vs THE STATE
This matter comes before the Lahore High Court through a criminal miscellaneous application whereby the petitioner seeks post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No. 130 of 2006 registered under sections 17/22 of the Emigration Ordinance, 1979 at Police Station F.I.A., Gujranwala. The core allegation against the petitioner was that he, along with a co-accused, received money from the complainant on the false pretext of sending him abroad for employment. The core legal question revolves around whether vicarious liability for receiving money, where the actual amount was received by a co-accused upon the petitioner's asking, warrants further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. The court held that since the record is silent regarding the direct receipt of money by the petitioner himself, his degree of vicarious liability calls for further inquiry, entitling him to bail. The court laid down the principle that tentative assessment of evidence pointing to potential further inquiry regarding vicarious liability is a valid ground for granting post-arrest bail.
- Whether an accused person is entitled to post-arrest bail when the record is silent regarding the direct receipt of money by him?
- Does the question of vicarious liability for an offence under the Emigration Ordinance, 1979 constitute a ground for further inquiry under criminal jurisprudence?
- Whether receiving money through a co-accused upon the asking of the main accused brings the case within the scope of further inquiry for bail purposes?
- Section 17, Emigration Ordinance 1979
- Section 22, Emigration Ordinance 1979
ORDER
' MIAN MUHAMMAD NAJAM-UZ-ZAMAN, J.--- Seeks post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No,130 of 2006, dated 18-1-2006 for the offence under sections 17/22 of E.O., 1979 registered at Police Station F. I. A . , Gujranwala.
2. The precise allegation against the petitioner as penned in the F.I.R. Is that he along with other co- accused namely Aqeel Ahmed had received Rs,4,16,900 from the complainant Waseem Butt on the pretext of sending him abroad (Korea) for employment. Allegedly this commitment was never honoured nor has the said amount been returned.
' Petitioner was arrested in this case on 26-3-2006. Bail application of the petitioner was dismissed by Special Judge (Central), Lahore vide order, dated 22-4-2006, hence this petition.
3. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, I have observed that though in the F.I.R. Allegation against the petitioner is that he along with other co-accused had received the said amount from complainant Waseem Butt on the pretext of sending him abroad for employment but the data available on the record is absolutely silent with regard to receiving of money by the petitioner himself and the entire case is that the said amount was received by the co-accused of the A petitioner namely Aqeel Ahmed and that the amount was paid upon the asking of the petitioner. In this view of the matter how far the petitioner could vicariously be liable for the commission of offence is a question' which calls for further inquiry entitling him to the concession of bail. Accordingly this petition is allowed and petitioner is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds amounting to Rs,1,00,000 (Rupees one lac only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of D.R. (Judicial) of this Court.