JINDWADDA vs STATE and another
This criminal petition was filed by Jindwadda seeking post-arrest bail in case FIR No. 308 dated 30.08.2017 registered under Section 22 of the Emigration Ordinance 1979 at Police Station FIA, District Multan. The core allegation was that the petitioner and co-accused received money from the complainant, sent him to Saudi Arabia, but failed to arrange an 'Aqama', resulting in his deportation. The Lahore High Court observed that the FIR did not specify which accused received the amount, no documentary evidence linked the petitioner to the travel agency run by a co-accused, nothing was recovered from the petitioner during physical custody, and he had no previous criminal record. The Court held that these circumstances rendered the case one of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Consequently, the petition was allowed and the petitioner was admitted to post-arrest bail subject to furnishing appropriate surety bonds, establishing the principle that lack of specific attribution, absence of recovery, and absence of criminal record warrant further inquiry for bail purposes.
- Whether post-arrest bail can be granted when the FIR is silent regarding the specific attribution of receiving the alleged amount among multiple accused?
- Does the absence of documentary evidence connecting an accused to a travel agency make the case one of further inquiry?
- Is an accused entitled to bail under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when no recovery is made during physical custody and there is no previous criminal record?
- Section 22, Emigration Ordinance 1979
- Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
Through this petition, Jindwadda petitioner seeks post arrest bail in case FIR No, 308 dated 30.08.2017 registered for of fence under Section 22 of Emigration Ordinance, (XVIII of 1979), at Police Station FIA, District Multan.
2. The allegation against the petitioner is that he and his co-accused after receiving an amount of Rs, 6,20,000/- from the from complainant though sent him to Saudi Arabia yet did not manage 'Aqama' for him due to which he was deported therefrom.
3. Arguments heard. Record perused.
4. It has been observed that the crime report is silent to the effect that who out of the three accused persons received the alleged amount from the complainant. The petitioner is real father of co-accused Zahid who is a proclaimed offender so far. No documentary evidence qua any connection of the petitioner with the Travel Agency being run by co-accused Muhammad Kashif Nazir has so far been brought on record by the Investigation Agency or the complainant. During physical custody of the petitioner nothing could be recovered at his instance. The petitioner is having no previous criminal record. These circumstances make the case of petitioner one of further inquiry entitling him to the grant of post arrest bail under Section 497(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898. The petitioner is behind the bars since his arrest though is no more required for investigation purpose. In view of above mentioned circumstances, keeping him further incarcerated till indefinite period does not look justified. Hence, this petition is allowed and the petitioner is admitted to post arrest bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs, 1,00,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.