UMER ARSHAD vs STATE and another
This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by the petitioner, Umer Arshad, who was charged under Section 22-B of the Emigration Ordinance, 1979, for allegedly extracting money from a complainant to facilitate the illegal migration of his son to Turkey. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the nature of the evidence and the stage of the investigation. The Court observed that the petitioner had already undergone physical remand without the recovery of incriminating evidence, and the prosecution's case rested primarily on documentary evidence already in its possession. Holding that the petitioner's involvement required further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, the Court granted the bail application. The key principle laid down is that where the prosecution's evidence is documentary and already secured, and the accused has been subjected to custodial interrogation without yielding incriminating material, the accused is entitled to bail as further investigation or detention would serve no useful purpose.
- Whether an accused is entitled to post-arrest bail when the prosecution's case is based solely on documentary evidence already in its possession?
- Does the absence of incriminating evidence after a period of physical remand constitute grounds for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Is the continued detention of an accused justified when the prosecution has already secured all necessary evidence?
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 22-B, Emigration Ordinance 1979
ORDER
Through this petition u/S. 497, Cr.P.C., petitioner Umer Arshad, seeks post arrest bail in case FIR No. 174 dated 30.05.2016 registered u/S. 22-B of Emigration Ordinance, 1979, at Police Station F.I.A./C.C.
Multan.
2. As per crime report the allegation against the present petitioner is that he alongwith his co- accused extracted Rs.6,60,000/- from the complainant in order to send his son to Turkey but send him illegally.
3. Heard. Record perused.
4. Record reveals that the son of the petitioner went to Turkey on 11.04.2015 and remained there till 04.11.2015 when he was deported to Pakistan. I have also noticed that the petitioner has already been grilled during physical remand but no incriminating evidence was collected. There is no other evidence available on record ' against the petitioner except that he facilitated his co-accused. The involvement of the petitioner in the instant case would be determined by the trial Court after recording evidence. At present the case of the petitioner calls for further inquiry falling under sub- section (2) of Section 497, Cr.P.C. Even otherwise the entire evidence, so far collected by the police is based upon documentary evidence, which is already in the possession of the prosecution and there is no likelihood of tempering with the same by the accused/petitioner. Reliance is placed on the case titled "Saeed Ahmad v. The State" (1996 SCM R 1132). The petitioner is behind the bars since his arrest and is no more required for further investigation. Keeping the petitioner behind the bars for an indefinite period would not serve any useful purpose for the prosecution.
5. For what has been discussed above, this petition is allowed and petitioner. Umer Arshad, is admitted to post arrest bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.2,00,000/- with two