SHAUKAT ALI vs THE STATE
This is a post-arrest bail application filed under section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 in respect of an F.I.R. registered under section 17/22 of the Emigration Ordinance relating to allegations of receiving money on the false promise of sending the complainant abroad for employment. The core legal question concerns whether the petitioner is entitled to bail after arrest when the dispute has civil facets, witnesses do not support the prosecution, affidavits of non-prosecution are submitted, and the allegedly extorted amount has been refunded to the complainant. The Lahore High Court accepted the application and held that where witnesses do not support the prosecution case and the disputed amount has been refunded to establish bona fides, the case falls within the purview of further inquiry and does not attract the prohibitory clause. The key principle laid down is that the refund of the disputed amount coupled with the reluctance of the complainant and witnesses to prosecute warrants the grant of post-arrest bail under the rule of further inquiry.
- Whether a petitioner is entitled to post-arrest bail when the complainant and witnesses state they do not wish to prosecute?
- Does the refund of the disputed amount to the complainant bring the case within the scope of further inquiry under section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Whether a matter involving financial disputes converted into criminal proceedings warrants the grant of bail when it falls outside the prohibitory clause?
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 17/22, Emigration Ordinance
ORDER
Through this application under section 497, Cr.P.C. the petitioner seeks bail after arrest in case F.I.R.
No,286 registered on 7-8-2001 under section 17/22 of the 'Emigration Ordinance, at Police Station FIA Passport Cell, Lahore.
2. Brief allegations in the F.I.R. are that petitioner Shaukat Ali promised with the complainant for sending him abroad for the purpose of employment and has received the amount of Rs,3,00.000 in the presence of Muhammad Khan and Muhammad Akbar witnesses and after holding of the inquiry a case has been registered.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that a civil dispute was between the petitioner and the complainant for the taking of some money which has been converted into criminal offence. It is further contended that the affidavits have been sworn which are on the police tile by the witnesses namely Muhammad Akbar, and. Muhammad Khan and the complainant and they do not want to prosecute the petitioner in this case. The complainant is present in person and states that he received the amount back and does not want to prosecute the case against the petitioner.
4. In this view of the matter, when the witnesses are not supporting the prosecution case and the amount has been paid back by the petitioner to show the bona tides. The case of the petitioner falls within the purview of further inquiry and does not fall within the prohibitory clause. He is admitted to bail in the sum of Rs, 2 lacs with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Special Judge Central.