MUHAMMAD MUSTAQEEM vs THE STATE

ORDER

' Muhammad Mustaqeem, the petitioner has sought for post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No,29 dated 30-4-2002 registered under sections 17 and 22 of the Emigration Ordinance, 1979 (XVII of 1979) with Police Station F.I.A., Multan.

2. Briefly the prosecution case as per F.I.R. Is that in December, 2001 he and his co-accused Abdul Shakoor and Abdul Ghafoor had deceitfully secured Rs,9,19,000 (Rupees nine lac and nineteen thousand) from the complainant Haji Bashir Ahmad, Atta Muhammad, Muhammad Rafiq, Muqaddar Hussain and others for getting them 14 visas of employment in Saudia Arabia but they did not do so and even not returned them the money despite the execution of agreements in their favour.

3. The bail has been sought on the ground that he has falsely been roped in; that the offence under section 17 of the said Ordinance is punishable with imprisonment for five years or with fine or both and the offence under section 22 of the same is punishable with imprisonment to a term which may extend to 14 years or with fine or with both and as the alternate sentence of fine alone has been provided and so the offence would not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497(1), Cr.P.C.; that he is behind the bars for the last many months; and that he is previous non-convict: In support of the bail plea reliance has been placed upon the case of Shakil Hassan Rashdi v. The State 1992 M LD 99 Lahore.

4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the State has opposed the petition on the ground that he and his co-accused have secured huge amount from the complainants and others on the pretext of providing them 14 employment visas of Saudi Arabia but they did not do so.

5. I have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties with the help of available record,

6. The offence alleged against the petitioner is under sections 17 and 22 of the Emigration Ordinance, 1979. The punishment prescribed for the former is five years or fine or both and under section 22 of the same is for a term may extend to fourteen years or fine or with both.

7. In the case of Shakil Hassan Rashdi v. The State 1992 M LD 99 Lahore, it was held that as alternate sentence of fine is provided in the to aforesaid sections, so the offence would be out of prohibitory clause.

8. The grant of bail in offences not falling within the prohibitory clause of section 497(1), Cr.P.C. Is a rule and refusal an exception.

9. He is statedly behind the bars for the last about nine months and a previous non-convict.

10. In these circumstances, I find him entitled to bail. I, therefore, accept this petition, and admit him to bail provided he furnishes bail bond in the sum of Rs,1,00,000 (Rupees one lac) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.