MUHAMMAD SAEED vs THE STATE
This matter arises from a petition for post-arrest bail in respect of F.I.R. No. 152 of 2004 registered under sections 17/22 of the Emigration Ordinance, 1979 at Police Station Faisalabad, concerning allegations of receiving money on the pretext of sending the complainant's son abroad for employment. The core legal question is whether the petitioner made out a case for further inquiry under the law to warrant the grant of post-arrest bail. The Lahore High Court held that the petitioner's specific role was a later innovation during investigation contradicting the initial F.I.R., that the petitioner was a minor at the relevant time as per his School Leaving Certificate, and that the entire family appeared to have been roped in to pressurize the main accused, the petitioner's elder brother. Consequently, the petition was allowed, admitting the petitioner to post-arrest bail upon furnishing requisite security. The key principle laid down is that where material discrepancies and improvements surface during investigation regarding the specific role of an accused, and where questions of minority and possible false implication of an entire family arise, the case falls within the ambit of further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, entitling the accused to bail.
- Whether contradictions between the initial F.I.R. and statements recorded during investigation bring a case within the scope of further inquiry for the purpose of bail?
- Does the implication of an entire family of an accused person create reasonable grounds for further inquiry into the guilt of a petitioner?
- Can the plea of minority supported by a school leaving certificate form a valid ground for granting post-arrest bail?
- 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,152 of 2004 dated 18-12-2004 for the offence under sections 17/22 of E.O., 1979 registered at Police Station Faisalabad.
2. In brief the allegation against the petitioner as penned in theF.I.R. Is that he along with other co- accused namely Pervaiz had received Rs,4,60,000 from the complainant on the pretext of sending his son Imran Shahid to Germany for employment and this amount was paid in the presence of Muhammad Hanif son of Muhammad Ashraf and Faqir Hussain son of Ghulam Nabi at the house of Muhammad Yasin. Allegedly the said commitment was never honoured nor the said amount was returned by the accused persons and present F.I.R. Was registered.
' During the investigation petitioner was arrested on 25-4-2005. Bail application of the petitioner was dismissed by Special Judge (Central), Faisalabad vide order dated 20-7-2005, hence this petition.
3. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the record, I have observed that the matter was inquired into by the agency upon the application of Muhammad Yasin against petitioner and his co-accused namely Muhammad Pervaiz (brother) and Riaz Bibi (mother) that they have received Rs,4,60,000 in the house of the complainant on the pretext of sending Imran Shahid son of the complainant abroad for employment. The same facts have been mentioned in the F.I.R. But statements of Muhammad Hanif Qaiser Hussain and complainant which were brought on record reveal that saidamount was paid in three different transactions. Statedly Rs,100,000 were paid by Yasin to Pervaiz co-accused when petitioner and his mother Mst. Riaz Bibi were present in the house of the complainant. Thereafter, Rs,200,000 were sent to Pervaiz co-accused at Karachi through Hundi and allegedly the remaining amount i.e,Rs,1,60,000 were paid to the petitioner in the house of the complainant in the presence of said witnesses. With regard to the receiving of amount by the petitioner in the house of Yasin the complaint filed by the complainant and the contents of the F.I.R. Are silent in this regard. The involvement of the petitioner with the specific role seems to be a later innovation during the investigation. Even otherwise petitioner according to the School Leaving Certificate (copy of the same has been placed on record) was minor at the relevant time.
In the said circumstances of the case, I find strength in the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner that in fact the elder brother of the petitioner had received the amount and in order to pressurize the accused party the entire family of Pervaiz co-accused has been roped in this case.
In this view of the matter, prima facie case of the petitioner falls within the ambit of 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,100,000 (rupees one lac) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of D.R. (Judicial) of this Bench.