Zahoor Ahmed Mohsin Alias Muhammad Zahoor vs The State And Another
This post-arrest bail petition was filed before the Lahore High Court by the petitioner in a case registered under Sections 17 and 22 of the Emigration Ordinance, 1979 at Police Station F.I.A., Faisalabad. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner received Rs. 3,00,000/- to send the complainant's son to Greece for employment but instead illegally sent him to Iran, leading to his deportation. The petitioner contended, and the Deputy Prosecutor General along with the Investigating Officer conceded, that the petitioner had been declared innocent in two successive investigations, which established that the true dispute between the parties concerned a dacoity rather than a visa or emigration transaction, and a cancellation report was pending approval. The High Court held that findings of innocence during investigations made the case against the petitioner one of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Taking into account that the petitioner was a non-convict and incarcerated since 21.02.2011, the Court accepted the petition and granted bail.
- Whether an accused found innocent in successive police investigations is entitled to post-arrest bail under the rule of further inquiry?
- Whether a case falls under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when the investigating agency concedes the falsity of allegations and prepares a cancellation report?
- Can bail be granted in an Emigration Ordinance matter where the alleged money transaction is disproved and the actual dispute is unrelated to emigration?
- Section 17, Emigration Ordinance, 1979
- Section 22, Emigration Ordinance, 1979
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
CH. IFTKHAR HUSSAIN, J. - Petitioner Zahoor Ahmad Mohsan @ Muhammad Zahoor by way of the instant petition has prayed for after arrest bail in case F.I.R. No. C/19 registered under Sections 17/22 of the Emigration Ordinance, 1979 with Police Station F.I.A.,. Faisalabad on 11.1.2011.
2. Briefly the prosecution case as per the F.I.R. Is that in the year 2008, the petitioner had taken an amount of Rs, 3,00,000/- from applicant Muhammad Bakhsh for sending his son Iftikhar Ahmad to Greece for employment and he, thereafter, illegally sent him to Iran, wherefrom he was deported.
Hence, the case.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner in the two investigations has been found to be innocent; and that the dispute between him and applicant Muhammad Bakhsh is in relation to a dacoity and not of visa or anything of the sort.
4. The learned D.P.G., when confronted with these submissions, he has answered the same in the affirmative. According to him, the petitioner in the two investigations has been found to be innocent and in the last investigation by Kashif Nazir, S.I., F.I.A,, Faisalabad, it has been found that dispute between him and applicant Muhammad Bakhsh is in respect of a dacoity and there was no money transaction between them in respect of visa or sending his said son to Greece and such an allegation is false and so, the report to cancel the case has been prepared and the same is under consideration of the higher officers and after their decision, the same may be presented before the competent Court.
5. Kashif Nazir, S.I./I.O. Present, when questioned about the same, he has also answered it in the affirmative.
6. In view of this position, when the petitioner in the two investigations has been found to be innocent and statedly the dispute between him and applicant Muhammad Bakhsh is in relation to a dacoity and not of sending his son abroad, the case against him calls for further inquiry into his guilt and so, the same is covered under sub-section (2) of Section 497, Cr.P.C.
7. He is stated to be behind the bars since21.2.2011 and a previous non-convict, which has not been controverted by the other side.
8. In these circumstances of the case, I find that the case for his enlargement on bail has been made out.
9. I, therefore, accept this petition and admit him to bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lac only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court.