ASIM WAQAR DOGAR Versus State
This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by the petitioner, Asim Waqar Dogar, in connection with F.I.R. No. 489 registered under sections 17 and 22 of the Emigration Ordinance, 1979. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the circumstances of the case and the nature of the evidence collected. The Court observed that the prosecution relied solely on oral statements without independent evidence, and no recovery was made from the petitioner. Furthermore, the Court noted a pre-existing business dispute between the parties, rendering the complainant's claim of paying a large sum to the petitioner during a partnership dissolution prima facie improbable. With the investigation complete and no further need for physical custody, the Court held that the case against the petitioner falls within the scope of further inquiry into his guilt. Consequently, the Court granted post-arrest bail, establishing the principle that where the prosecution's case rests on questionable circumstances and lacks independent corroboration, the accused is entitled to bail under the purview of further inquiry.
- Does the existence of a prior business dispute between parties constitute a ground for considering the possibility of false implication in a criminal case?
- Is an accused entitled to bail when the prosecution case relies solely on oral statements without independent corroborative evidence?
- Does the completion of investigation and submission of a challan render the physical custody of an accused unnecessary for investigation purposes?
- Section 17, Emigration Ordinance 1979
- Section 22, Emigration Ordinance 1979
- Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
Through this petition Asim Waqar Dogar petitioner has sought post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.489 registered at Police Station F.I.A., Passport Circle, Lahore on 7-10-2003 for offences under sections 17/22 of the Emigration Ordinance, 1979.
2. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record it has been noticed that no independent evidence has been collected by the Investigating Agency in this case apart from mere oral statements of the complainant and his witnesses. Admittedly nothing had been recovered from the petitioner's possession during the investigation of this case. Paragraphs Nos.4 and 5 of the order, dated 21-1-2004 passed by the learned Special Judge (Central), Lahore show that there was a background of a business dispute between the parties arising out of dissolution of a partnership. In that backdrop false implication of the petitioner may not be ruled out of consideration at such a stage. The investigation of this case has already been completed qua the petitioner and an incomplete challan has already been submitted before the learned trial Court and, thus, physical custody of the petitioner is no longer required at this stage for the purposes of investigation. It is interesting to mention here that the alleged payment of money had been made by the complainant to the petitioner on 5-12-2002 at a time when the parties to this case were already engaged in winding up of their partnership on account of serious differences and, thus, handing over of a huge amount of money by the complainant to the petitioner at such a stage for sending the complainant abroad appears to be prima facie improbable. Be that as it may, the factual controversy A between the parties requires elaborate evidence to be recorded by the learned trial Court in that regard and that stage has not so far arrived in this case.
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.
H.B.T./A-509/L Bail granted.
Cited by 1 case
- HIKMAT vs THE STATE 2008 P Cr. L J 906