NASIR MEHMOOD Versus State
This matter arises from a petition seeking post-arrest bail in respect of F.I.R. No. 25 of 2004 registered under sections 17/22 of the Emigration Ordinance, 1979 at Police Station F.I.A., P.C. Gujranwala. The core legal question concerns whether the petitioner, who allegedly instructed the complainant party from abroad by telephone to pay money to co-accused for arranging employment abroad without directly receiving the funds himself, is entitled to post-arrest bail pending trial. The Lahore High Court held that since there is no direct evidence showing the petitioner received the money, and the evidentiary value of an audio-cassette implicating him is a matter for the trial court to determine after recording evidence, the case falls within the scope of further inquiry under the law. The court concluded by allowing the petition and granting post-arrest bail to the petitioner, establishing the principle that tentative assessment of disputed electronic or circumstantial evidence warranting further inquiry justifies the concession of bail.
- Whether a petitioner accused of instructing payments to co-accused from abroad is entitled to post-arrest bail when direct evidence of receiving funds is absent?
- Does the existence of an audio-cassette of disputed evidentiary value bring a criminal case within the scope of further inquiry?
- Section 17, Emigration Ordinance 1979
- Section 22, Emigration Ordinance 1979
ORDER
Seeks post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.25 of 2004 dated 27-7-2004 for the offences under sections 17/22 of E.O., 1979 registered at Police Station, F.I.A., P.C. Gujranwala.
2. In brief the allegation against the petitioner is that he along with other co-accused in furtherance of their common intention had deceitfully received Rs.2,50,000 from the complainant party in order to make arrangement for employment/send Atta-ur-Rehman and Ijaz Ahmed abroad. Allegedly this commitment was never honoured not the disputed amount has been returned by the petitioner or his co-accused.
3. During the investigation the petitioner was arrested in this case on 6-8-2004. Bail application of the petitioner was dismissed by Special Judge (Central), Lahore vide order dated 13-9-2004, hence this petition.
4. Heard. File perused.
5. The entire case of the prosecution against the petitioner is that from Malaysia he had been instructing on telephone to the, complainant party to make payment (disputed) amount to his-co-accused and in compliance the amount was paid. Admittedly there is no direct evidence against the petitioner to show that he had received the amount from the complainant party. Learned counsel for the complainant submits that complainant party is also in possession of an audio-cassette showing the involvement of the petitioner for the commission of this offence. How far this type of evidence would be sufficient to connect the petitioner with the commission of offence is yet to be determined by the trial Court after recording of evidence of both the sides. Prima facie, the said circumstances are sufficient to bring the case of the petitioner within the fold of further inquiry entitling him to the concession of bail. Accordingly this petition is allowed and petitioner is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds amounting to Rs.1,00,000 (rupees one lac) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
H.B.T./N-47/L ???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Bail granted.