2011 P Cr. L J 1214
[Quetta]
Before Ghulam Mustafa Mengal, J
Syed NADIR SHAH ---Applicant
Versus
THE STATE through FI A---Respondent
Criminal Bail Application No. 106 of 2011, decided on 13th May, 2011.
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) ---
----S. 497 ---Emigration Ordinance (XVIII of 1979), S.22(b) ---Receiving money for
providing foreign employment ---Bail, refusal of---Allegation against accused was that he
and his sons had taken huge amount from the complainant on the pretext of sending them
to abroad ---Punishment provided for the alleged offence was upto 14 years ---Accused
was nominated in the F.I.R. ---Allegations as contained in the F.I.R. were duly supported
by the complainant and prosecution witnesses ---Prosecution case was at preliminary stage
and deeper appreciation of evidence of the prosecution at bail stage could not be
discussed ---Bail application of accus ed was rejected, in circumstances.
Muhammad Mustaqeem v. State 2004 YLR 68; Saeed Ahmed v. State 1996 SCMR
1132; Syed Amanullah Shah v. State PLD 1996 SC 241 and Zafar Iqbal v. State 2000
PCr.LJ 834 ref.
Syed Ayaz Zahoor for Applicant.
Rauf Atta, Stan ding Counsel for the State.
ORDER
GHULAM MUSTAFA MENGAL, J. ---Applicant Syed Nadir Shah son of Syed Ewiz
Shah, who is one of the nominated accused in Crime No.126 of 2011 dated 11 -4-2011 for
commission of offence punishable under section 22(b) Emigrati on Ordinance, 1979 has
moved this bail application under section 497, Cr.P.C.
On the complaint of two persons namely Syed Abbas son of Syed Raza and Altaf
Hussain son of Muhammad Akbar F.I.R was registered against the applicant and his three
sons alleging therein that the applicant and his sons are involved in human smuggling and
taking people to Australia on the pretext of providing jobs in Australia and for this
purpose the accused persons demanded 5000 US$ from the complainants and payments
were made to the accused persons but they failed to take them to Australia and from time
to time they approached the accused persons and demanded their aforesaid amount but
they could not return the amount which were paid to him. During inquiry complainant
also produc ed a stamp paper and receipt in support of his claim. F.I.R was lodged against
the applicant and his sons and he was arrested.
A bail application was moved before the Special Judge, Emigration, Quetta, who
after hearing the parties rejected the same vide order dated 28 -4-2011, hence this bail
application.
Syed Ayaz Zahoor, learned counsel for the applicant contended that the applicant
is totally innocent and he has falsely been implicated in this case. He further contended
that there is no material eviden ce against the applicant on the record of the case. That
there is also delay in lodging the F.I.R. for which, no proper explanation is available. He
further contended that no document has been produced by the complainants to establish
that they had paid th e alleged amount to the applicant. He further contended that the
applicant is an old ailing man of 75/80 years, besides, Challan of the case has been
submitted and the applicant is no more required by the prosecution for further
investigation, thus reque sted that the applicant may be granted bail at this stage. He
relied upon the cases of Muhammad Mustaqeem v. State (2004 YLR 68), Saeed Ahmed v.
State (1996 SCMR 1132) Syed Amanullah Shah v. State (PLD 1996 SC 241) and Zafar
Iqbal v. State (2000 PCr .LJ 834).
On the other hand Mr. Rauf Atta, learned Standing Counsel has opposed the bail
application and submitted that the applicant is involved in an heinous offence and so far
as the delay in lodging the F.I.R. is concerned that has properly been expla ined. He
further contended that sufficient documentary evidence is available on record to connect
the applicant in the commission of offence. He further argued that the persons, who are
involved in the activities of human smuggling, do not issue any receip t for the amount
received by them, therefore, non -production of the receipts to show that the applicant had
received money from the complainants is immaterial.
I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and with their assistance
have perus ed the record minutely. It may be observed that the applicant is nominated in
the F.I.R. The allegations as contained in the F.I.R. are duly supported by the complainant
and prosecution witnesses. The prosecution case is at preliminary stage and it is well
settled law that at the bail stage deeper appreciation of the evidence of the prosecution
cannot be discussed. In the instant case, there is allegation that applicant and his sons
have taken huge amount from the complainants on the pretext of se nding them to
Australia. The punishment provided for the alleged offence is upto 14 years or fine or
both. Moreover, the cases referred by learned counsel for the applicant is distinguishable
from the facts and circumstances of the present case.
For the f oregoing reasons, I do not find any merits in this bail application, which
is hereby rejected. However, the trial Court is directed to proceed and dispose of the case
of the applicant within two months after receipt of this order.
The observations made he reinabove are tentative in nature and shall have no
bearing on merits of the case.
Bail application stands disposed of in the above terms.
H.B.T./40/Q Bail refused.This judgment is reproduced from a publicly available source for informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice. If you believe this listing contains an error,
let us know.