Rana MUHAMMAD AYUB Versus State
This matter arises from a petition filed by Rana Muhammad Ayub seeking post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No. 108 registered on 22-1-2004 at Police Station F.I.A. Passport Circle, Lahore, under sections 17/22 of the Immigration Ordinance, 1979. The core legal question is whether the petitioner is entitled to post-arrest bail given the general nature of allegations, lack of documentary evidence, and absence of recoveries. The Lahore High Court held that the allegations were general and collective, lacking specifics as to dates, amounts, or places of payment, and noted that no recovery was made from the petitioner whose role was secondary to a co-accused already released on bail. The court decided that the case called for further inquiry under subsection (2) of section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, thereby allowing the petition and admitting the petitioner to post-arrest bail.
- Whether general and collective allegations in an F.I.R. without specific details of money transactions justify granting post-arrest bail?
- Does the absence of any recovery from the accused during investigation make the case one of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Is an accused whose role is secondary to a co-accused already granted bail entitled to post-arrest bail on the rule of consistency?
- Section 17, Immigration Ordinance 1979
- Section 22, Immigration Ordinance 1979
- Section 161, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
Through this petition Rana Muhammad Ayub petitioner has sought post‑arrest bail in case F. I. R. No. 108 registered at Police Station F.I.A. Passport Circle , Lahore on 22‑1‑2004 for offences under sections 17/22 of the Immigration Ordinance, 1979.
2. After hearing the learned counsel for, the parties and going through the record it has straightaway been observed that the allegations levelled against the petitioner in the F.I.R. as well as in the statements recorded under section 161, Cr.P.C. are merely general and collective in nature. Throughout the investigation of this case the complainant party 'has failed to specify as to when the petitioner had received any money from the complainant, how much money was received by the petitioner and where such money was paid to the petitioner. There is no documentary evidence available on the record of investigation so as to substantiate the above‑mentioned vague and generalized allegations levelled against the petitioner by the complainant party. A perusal of the F.I.R. as well as the record of investigation shows that apparently the role allegedly played by the petitioner during the entire transaction was merely secondary in nature to that allegedly played by the petitioner's co‑accused namely Peer Talib Hussain who has already been admitted to post‑arrest bail by the learned trial Court on the basis of a compromise between him and the complainant party. 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 to the extent of the petitioner 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.1,00,000 (Rupees one hundred thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.
H.B.T.M‑743/L Bail granted.