MUHAMMAD JAMEEL Versus THE STATE
This bail application was filed under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 by an accused seeking post-arrest bail in a case registered under Sections 17 and 18/22 of the Immigration Ordinance 1979. The prosecution alleged that fifteen passengers deported from Jeddah for possessing forged visas named several agents, and subsequent statements implicated the petitioner in receiving money. The petitioner argued that he was not named in the First Information Report (FIR) or the initial statements of the deportees, and that his case was identical to that of a co-accused who had already been granted bail. The Lahore High Court observed that the petitioner's name was indeed absent from the initial statements made by the deportees, which named other agents. Applying the rule of consistency, the Court held that the petitioner was entitled to the same treatment as his co-accused. Consequently, the Court granted post-arrest bail to the petitioner subject to furnishing bail bonds.
- Whether an accused not named in the FIR or the initial statements of the victims is entitled to bail on the ground of consistency if a similarly placed co-accused has already been granted bail?
- Does the omission of an accused's name from the initial statements of deportees weaken the prosecution's case for the purpose of withholding post-arrest bail?
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 17, Immigration Ordinance 1979
- Section 18, Immigration Ordinance 1979
- Section 22, Immigration Ordinance 1979
- Section 161, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
Through this application under section 497, Cr.P.C. the petitioner seeks bail after arrest in case F.I.R. No. 160, dated 15‑5‑2002 under sections 17, 18/22, Immigration Ordinance, 1979 registered at Police Station FIA, Passport Cell, Township, Lahore.
2. According to the F.I.R. recorded on the complaint of Nasir Zaman, S.‑I., 15 passengers were received at Lahore Airport through Flight No. SV 730 who were deported by Saudi Airline Staff from Jaddah as the visas on their passports were found to be forged. They disclosed that they got the passports from seven agents namely Allah Ditta, Ijaz Zafar, Atta‑ur‑Rehman Haji Javaid, Muhammad Ilyas, Aslam Ch. and Saleem Jehangir. Subsequently on the statements of Ahsan Elahi and Muhammad Ramzan deportees and the statement of the other persons they also named Muhammad Iqbal and Muhammad Jameel as accused and they were arrested.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that petitioner was not named in the F.I.R. and also in the 'Karwai' in which the names of other accused were mentioned who are guilty of the offence under sections 17/22 of Immigration Ordinance, 1979. It is further contended that the original statement, made by the department on the hands of which names of certain accused have been mentioned does not find mention the name of the petitioner. It is also submitted that the case of the petitioner is at par with the case of the co‑accused Muhammad Iqbal.
4. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel has opposed this bail application of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner had received Rs.1,00,000 from the deportees and they subsequently made their statements under section 161, Cr.P.C. in this, regard. The petitioner is involved in a case falling within the prohibitory clause and is not entitled to grant of bail.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record carefully. In the original statement made by the deportees the name of the petitioner is not mentioned therein though the names of other accused who had sent the deportees abroad are found mentioned. In such circumstances, the case of the petitioner is at par with the case of Muhammad Iqbal who has been granted bail by this Court in Criminal Miscellaneous No.3917‑B of 2002 vide order dated 27th June, 2002. Petitioner is also entitled to the same treatment which has been given to the co‑accused. Hence, he is also admitted to bail subject to furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 (Rs. one lac only) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Special Judge Central, Lahore.
H.B.T./M‑2428/L Bail granted.