MUHAMMAD ARSHAD Versus State

ORDER

ASIF SAEED KHAN KHOSA, J .--Through this petition Muhammad Arshad petitioner has sought post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No. 261 registered at Police Station FIA, Passport Circle, Gujranwala on 2-7-2005 in respect of offences under sections 17/22 of the Emigration Ordinance, 1979.

2. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record I have noticed that the FIR in this case had been lodged with a delay of about two years and. no witness of the transaction had been nominated by the complainant therein. It is mentioned in the FIR itself that the complainant had in fact gone to Libya whereafter he had been deported therefrom after some time. The Investigating Officer present before the Court has stated that the petitioner's co-accused namely Mirza Mushtaq Ahmad belongs to a registered Recruiting Agency whereas the petitioner works as his Sub-Agent. He has gone onto inform that during the investigation it has been found that the complainant had been sent to. Libya through the above mentioned Recruiting Agency after fulfillment of all the legal formalities and, thus, sending of the complainant to Libya was not by itself illegal in any manner. He has .further informed that the complainant had been deported from Libya because his employer in Libya had failed to pay proper salary to the complainant and, thus, on account of difficulties in the contractual relations between the complainant and his employer the complainant's deportation had come about. All this shows that prima facie the petitioner was not at fault regarding anything that had gone wrong in Libya and that he had fulfilled his commitment with the complainant to the best of his ability and competence. Admittedly nothing had been recovered from the petitioner's possession during the investigation of this case. The investigation of this case has already been finalized and the petitioner is languishing in judicial lock-up and, thus, his physical custody is no longer required at this stage for the purposes of investigation.

3. For what- has been discussed above the case against the petitioner calls for further inquiry into his guilt within 'the purview of subsection (2) of section 497, Cr:P.C. This petition is, therefore, allowed and the petitioner is admitted to bail subject to furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs.50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand only) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.

N.H.Q./M-44/L Bail granted.