LIAQAT ALI vs STATE and another
This petition concerns a request for post-arrest bail by the petitioner, Liaqat Ali, who was accused of offences under Sections 17 and 22 of The Emigration Ordinance, 1979, regarding an alleged failure to secure employment for the complainant in Saudi Arabia after receiving payment. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the circumstances of the case. The Court held that the petitioner was entitled to bail, finding that the prosecution's case suffered from significant weaknesses, including an unexplained two-year delay in lodging the FIR and the complainant's failure to specify the date, time, or place of the alleged transaction. Furthermore, the Court noted that the potential sentence under Section 22 allowed for a fine only, making continued incarceration potentially punitive. The Court concluded that the prosecution lacked sufficient incriminating material to connect the petitioner to the offence, thereby establishing a case for further inquiry. Consequently, the Court granted post-arrest bail, emphasizing that the petitioner was a non-convict and the investigation was complete.
- Does an unexplained inordinate delay in lodging an FIR constitute grounds for further inquiry in a bail application?
- Can a case be considered for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when the prosecution fails to specify the time and place of the alleged transaction?
- Is the potential for a sentence of only a fine a relevant factor in determining whether to grant post-arrest bail?
- Section 17, The Emigration Ordinance, 1979
- Section 22, The Emigration Ordinance, 1979
- Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
Order
Through this petition, the petitioner namely Liaqat Ali seeks post-arrest bail in case FIR No, 173/2018, dated 12.6.2018, offence under Sections 17/22 of The Emigration Ordinance, 1979 registered with the Police Station FIA/CC, Multan.
2. Briefly , the accusation against the petitioner is that in the year 2016 the petitioner alongwith his co-accused received an amount of Rs, 4,50,000/- from the complainant and send him to Saudi Arabia for employment but they failed to arrange the agreed job for the " complainant, resultantly , the complainant returned and demanded back his amount but they refused.
3. Heard. Record perused.
4. After perusal of the record with valuable assistance given by learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Law Officer, it is reflected that though the petitioner has been saddled with the allegation of sending the complainant abroad for employment and they failed to arrange the required job for him and for this purpose, the complainant did not mention in the complaint that on what date time and place he handed over the amount to the petitioner , which prima facie creates doubt on the veracity of prosecution story .
5. The extra ordinary inordinate delay in lodging the FIR, which spread over a period of two years, has not at all been explained in any manner by the complainant. Guidance is sought from "Nadeem alias Nanha alias Billa Sher versus The State" (2010 SCMR 949), "Muhammad Rafique and others versus The State and others" (2010 SCMR 385) and "Hadayatullah versus Abdul Hameed and another" (1984 SCMR 1 19).
6. Moreover , the sentences provided under Section 22 of the 1 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 . Nothing is on record to show that the petitioner is involved in illegal business of sending people abroad through forged documents. The investigation of the case has been completed. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he is 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 facie, prosecution has no sufficient incriminating material to connect the petitioner with the commission of alleged offence and the same definitely leave room for further inquiry into the guilt of the, petitioner . The petitioner's 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 is behind the bars since 20.7.2018, as it would not serve any useful purpose. The commencement of trial could not come in the way of grant of bail, if in the opinion of the Court, a case for further inquiry was made.
Guidance is sought from Syed Khalid Hussain Shah v . The State (2014 SCMR 12 ).
9. For the above reasons, this petition is allowed and the petitioner is admitted to post-arrest bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs, 2,00,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court. The observations made above are tentative in nature and will have no effect upon any proceedings during the trial.