MAQSOOD AHMAD vs THE STATE

ORDER

' SYED SAKHI HUSSAIN BOKHARI, J.--- The petitioner has applied for post-arrest bail in case F.I.R.

No,456 of 2005 dated 28-10-2005 under sections 17 and 22 of Emigration Ordinance, 1979, registered at Police Station F.I.A. (P.C) Gujranwala.

2. As per F.I.R. Petitioner received Rs,1,72,000 and passport from complainant (Muhammad Yaqoob) for sending him abroad (Saudi Arabia) for employment. The petitioner sent him to Saudi Arabia but after three months he returned. The case was registered on 28-10-2005 and petitioner was accordingly arrested on 16-2-2006. Hence this bail application.

3. I have heard the arguments and perused the record .

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. Further submits that there is delay of 1-1/2 years in lodging the F.I.R. And the same has not been explained by the complainant, which makes the prosecution story doubtful. He contended that according to record complainant was sent abroad by Alliance Enterprises, Karachi and that petitioner never sent him abroad. He further contended that complainant went abroad on a valid permit to work as Barber, therefore, no offence is made out against the petitioner. He has argued that petitioner is not previous convict and he is in judicial lock-up since 16-2-2006 but challan has not been submitted in Court so far, therefore, he deserves concession of bail.

5. On the other hand learned counsel for the complainant as well as State have opposed this application on the grounds that petitioner is named in F.I.R.; that he received Rs,1,72,000 from complainant; that actually he is recruiting agent and that he had executed agreement dated 9-12- 2004 in favour of complainant for payment of Rs,1,72,000.

6. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties with care. The allegation against the petitioner is that he received Rs,1,72,000 and passport from the complainant for sending him abroad (Saudi Arabia) for employment and sent him to Saudi Arabia, but after three months he returned. There is unexplained delay of 1-1/2 years in lodging the F.I.R. And petitioner is entitled to get benefit of the same. The petitioner is in judicial lock-up since 16-2-2006 but according to Investigating Officer challan has not been submitted in Court so far. Muhammad Yagoob, complainant who is present in Court along with his counsel states that he had paid Rs,1,20,000 to petitioner. However, according to F.I.R. He paid him Rs,1,72,000. As such in the circumstances of the case I find that the case of petitioner is that of further enquiry. Moreover he is in judicial lock-up since 16-2-2006 but challan has not been submitted in Court so far. Kausar Mehmood, S.-I./ Investigating Officer states that petitioner is not previous convict. In these circumstances without going into merits of the case, I find it a fit case for grant of bail to the petitioner. As such application brought by him is accepted and he is allowed bail subject to furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs,80,000 (Rupees eighty thousand only) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court. However, if petitioner fails to appears before learned trial Court on any date of hearing the trial Court would be competent to cancel his bail. The observations made in this order would not prejudice case of either party during trial.

7. The concerned Director, F.I.A. Is directed to personally look into the matter and take legal action against the persons who are responsible for the delay in submitting the challan/report under section 173, Cr.P.C. As required under the law. The compliance report shall be submitted to the Deputy Registrar (Judicial) of this Bench within fifteen days.