Qari NAZIR AHMAD vs The STATE
This petition for post-arrest bail arises from FIR No. 58/2013, registered under Sections 18(b) and 22(b) of the Emigration Ordinance, 1979, at Police Station FIA, AHTC, Peshawar. The accused-petitioner was alleged to have arranged a fake visa for Saudi Arabia for the complainant, Attiq-ur-Rehman, who was subsequently deported. The core legal question before the High Court was whether the accused was entitled to the concession of bail given the evidentiary material available. The Court noted that the FIR was lodged three years after the alleged occurrence in 2010, and the prosecution relied solely on the statement of the complainant without providing further corroborative evidence or a substantial enquiry report. Holding that the case against the petitioner required further probe, the Court allowed the bail petition. The key principle laid down is that where the prosecution's case rests on a delayed FIR and lacks sufficient corroborative evidence beyond the complainant's statement, the matter warrants further inquiry, thereby entitling the accused to the grant of bail pending trial.
- Does a three-year delay in lodging an FIR, coupled with a lack of corroborative evidence, constitute sufficient grounds for the grant of post-arrest bail?
- Is the statement of a complainant alone sufficient to deny bail when the prosecution fails to produce additional evidence during the investigation?
- Section 18(b), Emigration Ordinance 1979
- Section 22(b), Emigration Ordinance 1979
- Section 161, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
QAISER RASHID KHAN, J.---The accused-petitioner seeks bail in case FIR No, 58 dated 4.9.2013 under sections 18(b)/22(b) Emigration Ordinance, 1979 Police Station FIA, AHTC, Peshawar after the said relief was declined to him by the learned Special Judge (Central) Peshawar on 16.2.2016.
2. Allegations against the accused-petitioner are that he had arranged a fake visa for Saudi Arabia for one Attiq-ur-Rehman who was in turn deported by the Saudi Emigration officials and thereafter he pointed an accusing finger at the accused-petitioner, prompting the FIA officials to hold an enquiry where after the FIR ibid was lodged.
Arguments heard and available record perused.
3. The record reveals that one Attiq-ur-Rehman was deported to Pakistan on 26.7.2010 by the Saudi Emigration officials for holding a fake visa and he accordingly recorded his statement under section 161, Cr.P.C. Pointing an accusing finger at the accused-petitioner for arranging the fake visa for him in lieu of payment of Rs,230000/-. Accordingly, an enquiry No, 58/2013 was conducted after about three long years of the alleged incident whereafter the accused-petitioner was nabbed in the matter.
4. The learned Standing Counsel for the State during the course of arguments was questioned about the enquiry report as well as the evidence so far collected against the accused-petitioner for his involvement in the illegal business but barring the statement of the complainant Attiq-ur- Rehman, the learned Standing Counsel was unable to furnish any adequate reply. Not only that the FIA officials spurred into action regarding the alleged occurrence of the year 2010 after three long years in the year 2013 but also that the available facts and circumstances of the case indeed call for further probe into the matter.
Resultantly, this bail petition is allowed and the accused-petitioner is granted bail provided he furnishes bail bonds in the sum of Rs,200000/- with two sureties, each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the learned trial court which shall ensure that the sureties are local, reliable and men of means.
Before parting with this order, it is directed that any observations recorded in this order, being purely tentative in nature, should in no way prejudice the proceedings before the learned trial Court where the case be decided on its own merits after recording evidence.
Cited by 1 case
- REHMAN ULLAH vs The STATE and another 2017 YLR 2458