Post Arrest Bail granted in Dubai Visa Case
📝 AI Summary — Plain-Language Overview
This case involved a man named Muhammad Aslam who was accused of fraud related to fake visa promises. According to the complainant, Aslam took Rs. 700,000 in two installments in October 2016, promising to arrange employment visas to Dubai for the complainant and his brother. He allegedly never delivered the visas or returned the money, leading to an FIR being registered against him under the Emigration Ordinance, 1979, which deals with illegal emigration-related offences.
Aslam was arrested and sought post-arrest bail from the Lahore High Court (Multan Bench). The court noted several weaknesses in the prosecution's case: there was a significant and unexplained delay of about a year between the alleged incident and the filing of the FIR, and the complainant failed to specify exact dates for the payments. The court found these gaps sufficient to warrant "further inquiry," a legal standard under Section 497(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code that allows bail when the case against the accused is not clearly established.
The court also considered that Aslam had no prior criminal record, had cooperated with the investigation, and was not needed for further questioning. Since his trial was unlikely to conclude soon, the court ruled that keeping him in jail indefinitely served no purpose.
The court granted him bail, requiring a bond of Rs. 200,000 with one surety. This case illustrates how delays and lack of specific evidence in a complaint can support a bail application, even in fraud-related cases.
یہ مقدمہ محمد اسلم نامی ایک شخص سے متعلق تھا جس پر جعلی ویزوں کے وعدوں کے ذریعے دھوکہ دہی کا الزام تھا۔ شکایت کنندہ کے مطابق اسلم نے اکتوبر 2016 میں دو قسطوں میں 700,000 روپے وصول کیے، جس کے عوض اس نے شکایت کنندہ اور اس کے بھائی کے لیے دبئی میں ملازمت کے ویزے کا بندوبست کرنے کا وعدہ کیا تھا۔ الزام ہے کہ اس نے نہ تو ویزے فراہم کیے اور نہ ہی رقم واپس کی، جس کے نتیجے میں ایمیگریشن آرڈیننس 1979، جو غیر قانونی نقل مکانی سے متعلق جرائم کا احاطہ کرتا ہے، کے تحت اس کے خلاف ایف آئی آر درج کرائی گئی۔
اسلم کو گرفتار کر لیا گیا اور اس نے لاہور ہائی کورٹ کے ملتان بینچ سے گرفتاری کے بعد ضمانت کے لیے درخواست دی۔ عدالت نے استغاثہ کے مقدمے میں کئی کمزوریاں نوٹ کیں: مبینہ واقعے اور ایف آئی آر درج کرانے کے درمیان تقریباً ایک سال کی غیر واضح اور طویل تاخیر تھی، اور شکایت کنندہ ادائیگیوں کی صحیح تاریخیں بتانے میں ناکام رہا۔ عدال
Generated from the full judgment text below — not a substitute for reading the actual opinion.
PLJ 2019 Cr.C . 243 [Lahore High Court, Multan Bench] Present: Tariq Saleem Sheikh, J. MUHAMMAD ASLAM --Petitioner versus STATE etc.--Respondents Crl . Misc. No. 6664-B of 2018, decided on 17.1.2019. Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 (V of 1898)-- ----S. 497(2)--Emigration Ordinance, (XVIII of 1979), S. 17/22--Post arrest bail grant of--Further inquiry--Allegation against petitioner is that he received a sum of Rs. 700,000/- from complainant in two installments to arrange employment visas for him and his brother for Dubai--However, neither he provided them promised visas nor returned their money--Petitioner is a previous non-convict and is behind bars. He has joined investigation and is not required by police for any further probe--His trial is not likely to be concluded in near future--No useful purpose would be served in keeping him in jail for an indefinite period, post arrest bail was allowed. [P. 244] A & B Mr. Abdul Qayyum Rao , Advocate for Petitioner. Mr. Khush Bakht Khan, AAG for State. Mr. Ghulam Farid Birmani , Advocate for Complainant. Date of hearing: 17.1.2019. Order The Petitioner has been booked in case F.I.R. No. 263/2018 dated 4.7.2018 registered at Police Station, F.I.A., C.C. Circle, Multan District Multan, for offences under Sections 17 & 22 of the Emigration Ordinance, 1979. Through this application he seeks post-arrest bail in the said case.
2. Briefly, the allegation against the Petitioner is that in the October 2016 he received a sum of Rs. 700,000/- from the Complainant in two installments to arrange employment visas for him and his brother Khurram Shehzad for Dubai. However, neither he provided them the promised visas nor returned their money.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. At the very outset, it is observed that there is an inordinate delay in lodging the FIR. The alleged occurrence took place in the year 2016 while the matter was reported to the FIA on 2.11.2017. The Complainant has not furnished any explanation for this delay. Further, he has not mentioned the specific time and date when he made the alleged payment to the Petitioner. All these facts put together call for further inquiry within the meaning of Section 497(2), Cr.P.C . to determine the Petitioner’s guilt.
4. The Petitioner is a previous non-convict and is behind the bars since 12-10-2018. He has joined the investigation and is not required by the police for any further probe. His trial is not likely to be concluded in the near future. No useful purpose would be served in keeping him in jail for an indefinite period.
5. For what has been discussed above, this application is accepted. The Petitioner is admitted to post-arrest bail subject to his furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs. 200,000/- (Rupees two hundred thousand) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court. (I.A.K.) Bail accepted