Pre-Arrest Bail in Emigration Ordinance Case

PLJ 2019 Cr.C . 270 [Lahore High Court, Multan Bench] Present: Sardar Muhammad Sarfraz Dogar , J. AMANAT ALI--Petitioner versus STATE and another--Respondents Crl . Misc. No. 2667-B and 2670-B of 2018, decided on 11.7.2018. Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 (V of 1898)-- ----S. 497(2)--Emigration Ordinance, (XVIII of 1979), S. 2--Post arrest bail, grant of--Further inquiry--Accusation against petitioner is that they received an amount of Rs. 3,80,000/- from complainant to Malaysia but failed to arrange any job for him, resultantly, he came back--Petitioner has behind bars--Sentence provided under Section 22 of Emigration Ordinance is 14-years or with fine or with both, meaning thereby, learned trial Court after conclusion of trial can sentence accused only for fine and in that eventuality, keeping petitioner behind bars would amount to be double jeopardy--investigation of case has been completed--Prosecution has no sufficient incriminating material to connect petitioners with commission of alleged offence and same definitely leave room for further inquiry into guilt of petitioner--Post arrest bail was allowed. [Pp. 271 & 272] A, B, C & E Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 (V of 1898)-- ----S. 498--Pre-arrest bail--Confirmed--Object of--Object of pre-arrest bail is to save innocent persons from humiliation, harassment and incarceration on basis of false implication--Pre-arrest bail was confirmed. [P. 272] D PLD 2012 SC 222; PLD 2009 SC 427 ref. Mr. Abdul Qayyum Rao , Advocate for Petitioner. Malik Najaf Ali, Assistant Attorney General for Pakistan for State. Mr. Muhammad Aqeel Yousaf Bhatti , Advocate for Complainant. Date of hearing: 11.7.2018. Order Through this single order, I would like to dispose of two bail petitions. In the present petition i.e. Crl . Misc. 2667-B of 2018, Amanat Ali petitioner seeks his pre-arrest bail, and in other Crl . Misc. No. 2670-B of 2018, Shahid Imran petitioner seeks his release on post-arrest bail in case FIR No. 94/2018, dated 21.2.2018, offence under Section 22 of The Emigration Ordinance, (XVIII of 1979), registered with the Police Station FIA/CC, Multan, at the instance of Maqsood Ahmad complainant. 2. Briefly, the accusation against the petitioners is that in the year 2016, they received an amount of Rs. 3 ,80,000 /- form the complainant to send him abroad for employment. Thereafter, they send the complainant to Malaysia but failed to arrange any job for him, resultantly, he came back. 3. Heard. Record perused. 4. After perusal of the record with valuable assistance given by learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the complainant as well as learned Law Officer, it is noted that during the investigation, no recovery has been effected from the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has deposited an amount of Rs. 3 ,80,000 /- in the account relating to one Kalsoom Zahoor , who has no concern with the petitioners. Kashif Hussain S.I ./ FIA, present with the record, also verified this fact before this Court. 5 & 6. Moreover, the petitioner Shahid Imran has behind the bars since 02.4.2018. The sentence provided under Section 22 of the Emigration Ordinance is 14 years or with fine or with both, meaning thereby, the learned trial Court after conclusion of the trial can sentence the accused only for fine and in that eventuality, keeping the petitioner behind the bars would amount to be double jeopardy. The investigation of the case has been completed. No useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner in custody for indefinite period. The petitioner Amanat Ali is father of petitioner Shahid Imran , therefore, being father of Shahid Imran chances of his false implication with deliberation after consultation cannot be ruled out. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are previously non-convict, which is not rebutted by the learned Law Officer. 7. All these facts, when seen together, lead to this Court to draw an inference that prima facie, prosecution has no sufficient incriminating material to connect the petitioners with the commission of alleged offence and the same definitely leave room for further inquiry into the guilt of the petitioner. The petitioners’ case, therefore, is covered under sub-Sections (2) of Section 497, Cr.P.C . calling for further inquiry into his guilt. Guidance is sought from Qamar alias Mitho v. The State and others (PLD 2012 S.C. 222). 8. The petitioner Amanat Ali has joined the investigation. Needless to mention here that object of pre-arrest bail is to save innocent persons from humiliation, harassment and incarceration on the basis of false implication. Guidance is sought from Rana Muhammad Arshad v. Muhammad Rafique and another (PLD 2009 Supreme Court 427). 9. In view of all above, and without further commenting upon the merits of the case, these petitions are accepted and ad-interim pre-arrest bail already allowed to the petitioner Amanat Ali is confirmed and petitioner Shahid Imran is allowed post-arrest bail subject to their furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 2 ,00,000 /- (Rupees two lacs only) each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court. 10. It is, however, clarified that observations made herein are just tentative in nature and strictly confined to the disposal of this bail petitioner. (Q.N.) Bails allowed