MUHAMMAD AKRAM Versus State

ORDER

TARIQ SHAMIM, J.-- -Through this petition, the petitioner seeks pre arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.394 of 2006, dated 17-7-2006, registered under sections 17(i)/ 22(b), of the Emigration Ordinance, 1979, at Police Station Passport Cell/F.I.A., Gujranwala.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant along with others were deported from Spain and on his arrival at the Airport reported to the F.I.A. Authorities that the petitioner had received Rs.5,70,000 from him in the presence of witnesses for sending him abroad for employment purposes. Consequently, the afore-mentioned F.I.R. was registered against the petitioner.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the complainant Muhammad All son of All Bahadur had sworn in an affidavit to the effect that he had not paid any money to the petitioner, therefore, the case against the petitioner was one of further inquiry and that there was no connecting evidence of preparation of any document against the petitioner, hence he was entitled to the concession of bail.

4. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the Federation of Pakistan contended that the petitioner was duly nominated in the F.I.R., who had been paid an amount of Rs.5;70,000 by the complainant for sending him abroad in the presence of witnesses, namely, Ghulam Mustafa and Sajid Mehmood; that the petitioner had misused the concession of bail by intentionally not appearing before the learned lower Court on the date when the case was fixed for confirmation of his bail; that two witnesses afore-mentioned had fully supported the prosecution case against the petitioner, that no mala fides had been alleged against the F.I.A. Authorities for the false involvement of the petitioner, that recovery had yet to be effected from the petitioner, who had not joined the investigation and lastly that the offences mentioned in the F.I.R. fell within the prohibitory clause of section. 497, Cr.P.C. hence the petitioner was not entitled to the concession of pre-arrest bail.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with the assistance of learned Standing Counsel for Federation of Pakistan.

6. The petitioner is named in the F.I.R. and serious allegations have been levelled against him. The complainant on his return made a statement before the F.I.A. Authority to the effect that the petitioner had received Rs.5,70,000 on the pretext of sending him abroad for the purpose of employment, hence prima facie sections 17/22 of the Emigration Ordinance are attracted to the case of the petitioner. Section 22 of the Ordinance is punishable with imprisonment of fourteen years hence, the same is hit by the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. No mala fides has been shown by the accused against the officials of the F.I.A. for his false implication in the case. Such mala fides is prerequisite for grant of extraordinary concession of pre-arrest bail which is lacking in the instant case. Two other similar cases stand registered against the petitioner. Further, after grant of ad interim pre-arrest bail, the petitioner did not appear before the learned lower Court when the case was fixed for confirmation of bail and thus, he misused the concession of pre-arrest bail granted to him by the learned lower Court. The witnesses of the F.I.R., namely, Ghulam Mustafa and Sajid Mehmood have fully supported the prosecution case in their statements before the F.I.A. Authorities, thus further connecting the petitioner with the commission of the offences alleged against him. Even if an affidavit has been sworn in by the said Muhammad Ali to the effect that the amount in question had not been paid to the petitioner by him, the same is of no consequence as an affidavit cannot be given the status of evidence. Reliance is placed, upon the case titled as Amjad Hussain v. The State 2004 PCr.LJ 550. At present, there is ample evidence on record to connect the petitioner with. the commission of the crimes alleged against him.

7. Resultantly, this petition being without force is dismissed and the ad interim pre-arrest bail granted to the petitioner vide order dated 29-8-2006 is withdrawn.

H.B.T./M-43/L Bail refused.