KAMRAN SALEEM vs Syed ARIF BOKHARI and 4 others
This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by the accused, Kamran Saleem, who was charged under sections 17 and 22 of the Emigration Ordinance, 1979. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner and his co-accused demanded money from the complainant under the pretext of securing her employment in England, though the money was allegedly received by the co-accused. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, who was merely accused of introducing the complainant to the co-accused rather than receiving funds, was entitled to bail pending trial. The Court held that the petitioner's case warranted further inquiry into his guilt under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. The Court observed that there was no direct allegation of the petitioner receiving money, and his role appeared limited to introduction. Consequently, the Court admitted the petitioner to bail, emphasizing that where the culpability of an accused is not prima facie established and requires further investigation, the accused is entitled to the benefit of bail under the statutory framework.
- Does the mere introduction of a complainant to co-accused persons constitute sufficient grounds to deny bail in an emigration fraud case?
- When does a criminal case fall within the purview of 'further inquiry' under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Is an accused entitled to bail if there is no direct allegation of receiving funds in a case involving alleged emigration fraud?
- Section 17, Emigration Ordinance 1979
- Section 22, Emigration Ordinance 1979
- Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 161, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' Petitioner Kamran Saleem through the instant petition has sought for post-arrest bail in case F.I.R: No.469 of 2003 registered under sections 17 and 22 of the Emigration Ordinance, 1979 with F.I.A.(PC), Lahore on 27-9-2003.
2. Briefly the prosecution case as per F.I.R. Is that Ashir Javed Mall, Shahid Javed Iqbal and Kamran Saleem (petitioners) had demanded an amount of Rs.2,60,000 from the complainant Mst. Shamim Sher for getting her employment in England. She in the presence of the witnesses had given this amount in two instalments to Ashir Javed Mall and Shahid Javed Iqbal but they thereafter neither sent her abroad nor returned her money.
3. It has been contended on his behalf that he has falsely been roped in; that there is no evidence against him that he actually had received or secured any amount from the complainant for getting her employment in England and so the case against him calls for further inquiry into his guilt and so is covered under subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. And that he is behind the bars and previous non-convict.
4. Conversely, the learned counsel for the State has opposed the petition on the ground that he is named in the F.I.R.; and that he alongwith his aforesaid co-accused has demanded the said amount from the complainant and is prima facie connected with the offence under section 22 of the Emigration Ordinance, 1979.
5. I have carefully considered the submissions made from both the sides with the help of available record.
6. There is only allegation against him in the F.I.R. That he alongwith his co-accused Ashir Javed Mall and Shahid Javed Iqbal has demanded the said amount from the complainant for getting her employment in England.
7. There is no allegation against him in the same that he actually has received any part of that amount directly from her. There is rather her statement under section 161, Cr.P.C. On the record purported to have been recorded on 25-10-2003. The same is to the effect that he simply has introduced her with his those co-accused. And similar are the statements under section '161, Cr.P.C.
Of two witnesses namely Ithalid, Latif Bhatti and Rana Iftikhar Ahmad. Hence, it is yet to be seen that if he can be held liable for the alleged offence or not His case, therefore, calls for further inquiry into his guilt and falls within the purview of subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C.
8. He is stated to be behind the bars for the last about four months and previous non-convict, which has not been controverted by the other side.
9. In these circumstances, the case for his enlargement on bail has been made out. His bail petition, therefore, is accepted and he is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 (Rupees one lac) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Special Judge (Central), Lahore.
Copy Dasti on payment of usual charges.