AMANAT ALI vs STATE and another
This matter concerns two bail petitions: one for pre-arrest bail by Amanat Ali and one for post-arrest bail by Shahid Imran, both accused under Section 22 of the Emigration Ordinance 1979 for allegedly failing to secure employment for the complainant in Malaysia after receiving payment. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to bail given the evidentiary record and the nature of the alleged offense. The Court held that the petitioners were entitled to bail, granting pre-arrest bail to Amanat Ali and post-arrest bail to Shahid Imran. The Court reasoned that no recovery had been effected from the petitioners, the investigation was complete, and the petitioners were previously non-convicts. Furthermore, the Court noted that the potential sentence for the offense included the possibility of a fine only, rendering continued incarceration potentially punitive. The key principle laid down is that where the prosecution lacks sufficient incriminating material to connect the accused to the offense, the case falls under the scope of further inquiry, justifying the grant of bail under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.
- Does the absence of recovery during investigation constitute grounds for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Can the possibility of a sentence consisting only of a fine justify the grant of post-arrest bail?
- What is the primary objective of granting pre-arrest bail in criminal proceedings?
- Section 22, Emigration Ordinance 1979
- Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
Through this single order , I would like to dispose of two bail petitions. In the present petition i,e, Crl. Misc. 2667-B of 2018 , Amanat Ali petitioner seeks his pre-arrest bail, and in other Crl. Misc. No, 2670-B of 2018 , Shahid Imran petitioner seeks his release on post-arrest bail in case FIR No, 94/2018, dated 21.2.2018, offence under Section 22 of The Emigration Ordinance, (XVIII of 1979), registered with the Police Station FIA/CC, Multan, at the instance of Maqsood Ahmad complainant.
2. Briefly , the accusation against the petitioners is that in the year 2016, they received an amount of Rs, 3,80,000/- form the complainant to send him abroad for employment. Thereafter , they send the complainant to Malaysia but failed to arrange any job for him, resultantly , he came back.
3. Heard. Record perused.
4. After perusal of the record with valuable assistance given by learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the complainant as well as learned Law Officer, it is noted that during the investigation, no recovery has been effected from the petitioner . Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has, deposited an amount of Rs, 3,80,000/- in the account relating to one Kalsoom Zahoor , who has no concern with the petitioners.
Kashif Hussain S.I./FIA, present with the record, also verified this fact before this Court.
5 & 6. Moreover , the petitioner Shahid Imran has behind the bars since 02.4.2018. The sentence provided under Section 22 of the Emigration Ordinance is 14 years or with fine or with both, meaning thereby , the learned trial Court after conclusion of the trial can sentence the accused only for fine and in that eventuality , keeping the petitioner behind the bars would amount to be double jeopardy . The investigation of the case has been completed.
No useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner in custody for indefinite period. The petitioner Amanat Ali is father of petitioner Shahid Imran, therefore, being father of Shahid lmran chances of his false implication with deliberation after consultation cannot be ruled out. Learned counsel for the petitio ners submits that the petitioners are previously non-convict, which is not rebutted by the learned Law Of ficer.
7. All these facts, when seen together , lead to this Court to draw an inference that prima fade, prosecution has no sufficient incriminating material to connect the petitioners with the commission of alleged offence and the same definitely leave room for further inquiry into the guilt of the petitioner . The petitioners' case, therefore, is covered under sub-Sections (2) of Section 497, Cr,P.C. calling for further inquiry into his guilt. Guidance is sought from Qamar alias Mitho v . The State and others (PLD 2012 S.C. 222 ).
8. The petitioner Amanat Ali has joined the investigation. Needless to mention here that object of pre-arrest bail is to save innocent persons from humiliation harassment and incarceration on the basis of false implication. Guidance is sought from Rana Muhammad Arshad v . Muhammad Rafique and another (PLD 2009 Supreme Court 427).
9. In view of all above, and without further commenting upon the merits of the case, these petitions are accepted and ad-interim pre-arrest bail already allow ed to the petitioner . Amanat Ali is confirmed and petitioner Shahid lmran is allowed post-arrest bail subject to their furnishing bail bonds in the . sum of Rs, 2,00,003 (Rupees two lacs only) each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.
10. It is, however , clarified that observat ions made herein are just tentative in nature and strictly confined to the 'disposal of this bail petitioner: