Dr. ABDUL RAUF vs THE STATE

ORDER

1. AZIZULLAH M. MOMEN, J.-- Applicant Dr. Abdul Rauf, has filed this bail application under section 498, Cr.P.C. Praying therein to admit him to bail before arrest in F.I.R., No.86 of 2006, registered at Police Station F.I.A., Passport Circle, Karachi, under sections 17 and 22 of Emigration Ordinance, 1979.

2. The facts giving rise to the filing of the present bail application are to the effect that on the basis of a preliminary inquiry, thereby collecting evidence for the purpose of registration of the said F.I.R., Sub-Inspector Mushtaq Ali Shah, lodged the said F.I.R. On 21-2-2006, stating therein that a large number of intending immigrants were proceeding to European countries without complying with the relevant provisions of law in that regard, and were available at Hotel United at Karachi; hence a raiding party was constituted and Hotel United was checked which led to the discovery of 28 persons, whose statements were subsequently recorded and who stated to the effect that they were actually intending to proceed to Moscow/Russia for their onward journey to Western countries to get employment there, and further stated that each one of them paid varying amounts viz. From Rs.400,000, to Rs.600,000 for getting such employment abroad; they further stated that a number of agents were involved in such illegal business of arranging for them to be taken abroad for the purpose of getting employment, inclusive of arranging the travel documents for different countries, and that present accused/applicant, Dr. Abdul Rauf, was disclosed by them to be the chief agent/main agent, for all such purposes; hence offences punishable under section. 17/22 of the Emigration Ordinance, 1979 were found to have been committed and further investigation was being carried out to collect more evidence against the accused persons. Learned counsel for the accused/applicant has argued that valid travel documents were obtained in favour of the intending immigrant and thereby there is no evidence that they were intended to be sent abroad without such valid documents. Learned Standing counsel has argued that the settled principle of law is that even though where two Courts may have been invested with concurrent powers to entertain a bail application, then also the rule of propriety demands that the accused/applicant had first to approach the trial Court with a bail application, and the same having been directly presented before this Court is not maintainable; learned A Standing counsel further argued that bail before arrest is not a right of any accused excepting where a clear proof comes out from the file that there is likelihood that the applicant may have been harassed with ulterior motives to disgrace him and that he could falsely be involved in the case in question. Learned Standing Counsel further read the statement of persons/witnesses who have specifically named the present accused/applicant to be fully involved for the purpose of making arrangements to send different persons abroad, either for seeking employment there, or for any other reason and that the applicant was never issued any licence authority to act as an agent for such purposes. Be that as it may, learned Standing Counsel has validly argued that this bail application under section 498, Cr.P.C. Has been improperly presented before this Court, bypassing the forum of the trial Court and thus, is not maintainable; so also no ulterior motive is shown at the hands of the investigation agency so that it could validly be argued that the accused/ applicant is likely to be harassed and disgraced and falsely involved in the case in hand. For the said reasons, this application is hereby dismissed and interim order of bail before arrest is recalled, with liberty to the applicant to approach the competent Court at the lower forum with a bail application. #TBS