SAJJAD AHMED vs STATE
This matter arises from a petition for post-arrest bail filed by the petitioner Sajjad Ahmed in FIR No. 575/08 registered under Sections 17 and 22 of the Emigration Ordinance, 1979 at Police Station FIA, Gujranwala, concerning allegations of illegally sending a deportee to Turkey without documents after receiving payment. The core legal question is whether post-arrest bail can be granted to an accused charged with non-compoundable offences on the basis of a compromise or return of money to the victim, coupled with the fact of involvement in other similar cases. The Lahore High Court held that the bail application must be dismissed, reasoning that the offences are non-compoundable as they affect the society at large rather than just the individual, and courts cannot adjust the convenience of parties against the law, especially when the petitioner is a habitual offender involved in multiple similar cases. The key principle laid down is that non-compoundable offences cannot be condoned for bail merely through private restitution or return of money, and habitual involvement in similar crimes disentitles an accused to discretionary relief of bail.
- Whether post-arrest bail can be granted for non-compoundable offences solely on the ground that the accused has returned the money to the complainant?
- Does the return of money in an illegal emigration case compound the offence under the Emigration Ordinance, 1979?
- Can involvement in multiple similar cases serve as a ground to refuse post-arrest bail to an accused?
- Section 17, Emigration Ordinance 1979
- Section 22, Emigration Ordinance 1979
ORDER
Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks post-arrest bail of the petitioner in FIR No, 575/08 dated 19.05.2008 under Sections 17 and 22 E.O 1979 registered at P.S. FIA, Gujranwala.
2. According to the FIR, 67. persons were deported from Turkey. One of the deportees Shakeel Ahmad reported that he had paid Rs, 3 lac to the present petitioner to make arrangements for his emigrkion to Greece. Thereafter, the petitioner sent the deportee, Shakeel Ahmad, without legal documents to Turkey; where he was arrested and eventually deported.
3. The learned counsel submits that petitioner has returned money to the said deportee which he had fleeced from him. Deportee Shakeel Ahmad himself is present in Court and states that the money which he had paid to the petitioner has been returned to him by the petitioner, therefore, petitioner may be granted bail.
4. On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel for Federal Government, submits that petitioner is a habitual offender and three other cases of similar nature stand registered against him.
5. I have considered the above contentions. The statement of learned counsel for the petitioner and deportee Shakeel Ahmad clearly establish that petitioner had obtained the amount alleged in the FIR thus committed the offences. The offences committed by him are not compoundable. This Court does not function to adjust the convenience or desires of parties but only in accordance with law and within confines of law, The offences which are not compoundable, they affect adversely the whole society besides any individual, like, in present case, above mentioned deportee.
Moreover, petitioner is involved in three more cases of similar nature which fact cannot be overlooked either. For the above reasons, this bail application is dismissed.