ABDUL RAHIM vs THE STATE

' ATTAULLAH KHAN, J.---Petitioner, Abdur Rahim, has submitted this petition for bail in a case registered against him vide FI.R. No,129 dated 19-7-2011 under section 18-B122-B Immigration Act, Police Station, FIA, Peshawar.

2. Brief facts of the case fully narrated in F.I.R. No,129 of 2011 dated 10-3-2011, F.I.R. Was lodged by Amjad Ali, complainant, according to which an amount of Rs,5 lac were received by the accused- petitioner for sending the complainant to Thailand but instead of sending him to Thailand, he was provided with a forged Visa to U.A.E. And in spite of demand, was not paid to him back.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is no witness in respect of transaction held between the parties. He further submitted that the statement of complainant and that of Rahat Zairian are contradictory. According to the learned counsel, the punishment is fine or imprisonment.

4. On the other hand, Mr.Badi-uzZaman, learned Deputy Attorney-General of Pakistan submitted that there is no motive for false implication. The evidence connects the accused petitioner with the commission of offence and the accused petitioner is directly charged in the F.I.R.

5. I have considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the available record.

6. In this case Amjad Ali is complainant and the case was registered against the petitioner. In his statement recorded on 4-4-2011, he has stated that the amount was handed over by Rahat Zaman and his father in the presence of Bakht Zada and Zamin_ Gul, witnesses, to the accused. The statement of Zamin Gul recorded on 20-6-2001 does not disclose that the amount was paid by Rahat Zaman and father of the complainant to the accused-petitioner. Instead, he stated that A the accused received amount from the complainant. Rahat Zaman is also examined on 20-6-2011.

He is the person who along with father of the complainant paid amount to the accused. In his statement, he has stated that in his presence the accused received an amount from father of the complainant. There is nothing that the amount was paid by him. So, in this way, there, is contradiction between the statements of the witnesses, as to who paid the amount.

7. It is true that there is a confessional statement of the accused in which he has admitted that an amount of Rs,2,14,000 has been received from the complainant, but the questionnaire form would reveal that in answer to question No,4, he has replied that he was tortured so, on the face of record, confessional statement is -the result of torture and its quality is to be seen at the trial. At the moment, it cannot be taken against the accused.

8. In this case, nothing has been recovered from the accused to connect him with the offence. The delay in lodging the report has also made the case as of further inquiry. The offences under the above sections provide for alternate punishment of fine and as such does not fall under the prohibitory clause. Reliance are placed on 2006 M LD 1062 and 2006 YLR 3172.

Keeping in view the above discussion, I am of the opinion that the petitioner (Abdur Rahim son of Abdul Rashid) is entitled to the grant of bail and resultantly his bail petition is accepted and he is directed to 'be released on bail on furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs,200,000 (rupees two lacs), with two sureties, each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the Illaqa Judicial Magistrate/Magistrate on duty. The sureties shall be reliable and men of means. Bail petition allowed.