Haji FAQIR KHAN vs The STATE and another
This matter concerns a post-arrest bail petition filed by the accused, Haji Faqir Khan, who was charged under sections 18(b) and 22(b) of the Emigration Ordinance, 1979, for allegedly extorting money under the false promise of employment abroad. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the evidentiary gaps and the nature of the alleged offence. The Court observed that the prosecution's case relied on an agreement deed involving a witness whose statement had not been recorded, and there was ambiguity regarding whether the complainant was cheated or traveled abroad voluntarily. Furthermore, the Court noted that the accused was not directly named in the FIR and was charged only after a significant delay of two and a half years. Holding that the offences carried alternative punishments of fine and that refusing bail would effectively amount to punishment without trial, the Court granted the bail petition. The key principle established is that where the prosecution's case requires further inquiry and the potential punishment includes a fine, the accused is entitled to the concession of bail pending trial.
- Is an accused entitled to bail when the offence charged carries an alternative punishment of a fine?
- Does a significant delay in charging an accused in the FIR constitute grounds for further inquiry in a bail application?
- Should bail be granted when the prosecution's evidence regarding the alleged extortion remains uncorroborated by witness statements?
- Section 18(b), Emigration Ordinance 1979
- Section 22(b), Emigration Ordinance 1979
' MUHAMMAD YOUNIS THAHEEM, J.---Accused/petitioner Haji Faqir Khan seeks his release on bail in case FIR No, 81 dated 29.09.2016 charged under sections 18(b), 22(b) Emigration Ordinance, 1979 registered at Police Station Aza Khel, Nowshera.
2. Prior to this petition, the petitioner approached to Judge Special Court Immigration and Central Anti Corruption Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Peshawar for the grant of bail which was turned down vide order dated 05.12.2016.
3. The above stated FIR was lodged in the light of preliminary inquiry conducted upon written complaint filed by Shahid Khan whereby he alleged that Haji Faqir Khan extorted an amount of Rs,2,00,000/- from him with the false promise of sending him abroad (Turkey) for employment, however he was abandoned in Turkey thereby he came back to Pakistan on emergency passport and charged the accused Haji Faqir Khan for the commission of above stated offence.
4. Having heard arguments of learned counsel for the parties, record perused with their valuable assistance.
5. Perusal of the record would reveal that an agreement deed dated 08.11.2013 was executed between the accused/petitioner Haji Faqir Khan and Fazl-e-Mula whereby it was written that in respect of rupees three lacs accused/petitioner will bound to provide Visa/work permit within a period of one month by sending the complainant Shahid Khan to Turkey through Iran and to this effect rupees one lac was paid to the accused/petitioner in the presence of witnesses but the statement of this solitary witness Fazl-e-Mula through which above mentioned agreement deed has been executed with the petitioner Haji Faqir Khan, has not been recorded. As per allegation of complainant that the accused/petitioner has extorted rupees two lacs but no one has been cited as witness in whose presence another one lac has been paid. Moreover the record further speaks that Qasim Wardak has also been not nominated as an accused in the present case through which complainant was sent to Turkey and accused/petitioner has been given the role of agent for sending him abroad so whether complainant was cheated by the present accused/petitioner or was sent to abroad by his own sweet will, needs further probe in the matter.
6. The present accused/petitioner has not been directly charged in the First Information Report and after the delay of two and half years of the occurrence had been charged for the aforesaid offence after conducting preliminary inquiry. Even otherwise, the "offences under sections 18 and 22 of the Emigration Ordinance provide alternate punishment of fine, therefore, if offence is proved against petitioner then in that eventuality, he may be awarded punishment upto extent of 14 years or fine or both and if bail is refused it would amount punishment without trial so accused/petitioner is entitled to the concession of bail.
7. Resultantly, this bail petition is accepted and accused/petitioner is admitted to bail by furnishing bail bonds to the tune of Rs,2,00,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Judicial Magistrate concerned.
8. Needless to mention that the above observations being purely tentative in nature, should in no way prejudice the proceedings before the learned trial Court.
' These are the reasons for the short order of even date.
Cited by 2 cases
- Sohaib Ali Hashmat vs The State and another 2025 MLD 925
- Ismail Ijaz vs The State 2023 PCRLJ 114