Bail Granted in 17/22 Emigration Ordinance Case
📝 AI Summary — Plain-Language Overview
This case is about a man named Siddique who was accused of fraud related to overseas job placement. According to the police report, he and a co-accused allegedly took Rs. 960,000 from a complainant, promising to arrange police jobs in Bahrain for the complainant and his friends, but failed to deliver. He was charged under Sections 17 and 22 of the Emigration Ordinance, 1979, which deal with illegal recruitment practices for jobs abroad.
Siddique was arrested and sought post-arrest bail from the Lahore High Court. The court noted several weaknesses in the case against him: no passport, documents, or money were recovered from him during his arrest; he had no prior criminal record; the investigating officer admitted Siddique was not a licensed travel agent; and there was no documentary evidence of the alleged promise or the full amount supposedly received—only a cheque for Rs. 460,000, less than the claimed total.
Given these gaps, the court found the case required further inquiry into Siddique's actual guilt, which under Pakistani law is grounds for bail. The court also noted that while Section 22 carries a possible sentence of up to fourteen years, it allows for a fine as an alternative punishment, making continued detention less justified.
The court granted bail, requiring Siddique to submit bonds of Rs. 200,000 with two sureties. This case illustrates how courts weigh evidentiary gaps and possible alternate sentences when deciding pre-trial bail in fraud-related emigration cases.
یہ مقدمہ صدیق نامی ایک شخص سے متعلق ہے جس پر بیرون ملک ملازمت دلانے کے نام پر فراڈ کا الزام تھا۔ پولیس رپورٹ کے مطابق اس نے اور ایک دیگر ملزم نے مدعی سے 9 لاکھ 60 ہزار روپے وصول کیے تھے، اس وعدے پر کہ مدعی اور اس کے دوستوں کو بحرین میں پولیس کی نوکریاں دلوائی جائیں گی، لیکن وہ ایسا کرنے میں ناکام رہے۔ اس پر ایمیگریشن آرڈیننس 1979 کی دفعہ 17 اور 22 کے تحت مقدمہ درج کیا گیا، جو بیرون ملک ملازمتوں کے حوالے سے غیر قانونی بھرتی کے طریقوں سے متعلق ہیں۔
صدیق کو گرفتار کیا گیا اور اس نے لاہور ہائی کورٹ سے گرفتاری کے بعد ضمانت کی درخواست کی۔ عدالت نے اس کے خلاف مقدمے میں کئی کمزوریاں نوٹ کیں: گرفتاری کے وقت اس سے کوئی پاسپورٹ، دستاویزات یا رقم برآمد نہیں ہوئی؛ اس کا کوئی سابقہ مجرمانہ ریکارڈ نہیں تھا؛ تفتیشی افسر نے تسلیم کیا کہ صدیق لائسنس یافتہ ٹریول ایجنٹ نہیں تھا؛ اور مب
Generated from the full judgment text below — not a substitute for reading the actual opinion.
PLJ 2023 Cr.C . (Note) 136 [Lahore High Court, Lahore] Present : Syed Shahbaz Ali Rizvi , J. SIDDIQUE--Petitioner versus STATE and another--Respondents Crl . Misc. No. 74241/B of 2022, decided on 21.12.2022. Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 (V of 1898)-- ----S. 497--Emigration Ordinance, (XVIII of 1979), Ss. 17 & 22--Post-arrest bail, grant of--Allegation of--Petitioner and co-accused received an amount of Rs . 9,60,000/-with promise to arrange police jobs for complainant and his friends in Bahrain--Petitioner neither is a travel agent nor holds any such like office--Except oral evidence, no documentary evidence with regard to alleged promise of petitioner or receiving of amount of Rs . 960,000/-from complainant is available on file--The cheque in possession of complainant statedly of petitioner’s account is of Rs . 460,000/---These circumstances make case of petitioner one of further inquiry into his guilt entitling him to grant of post arrest bail in this case-- Section 17 of Emigration Ordinance, 1979, is punishable for five years sentence of imprisonment while though Section 22 of Ordinance ibid carries sentence of imprisonment exceeding up to fourteen years yet alternate sentence of fine is also provided for said offence--In circumstances mentioned supra, keeping petitioner further incarcerated till conclusion of trial, not in sight, does not look justified--Petition is allowed and petitioner is admitted to post arrest bail subject to his furnishing bail. [Para 3] A Mr. Javed Iqbal Malik , Advocate for Petitioner. Ms. Amra Salam , Assistant Attorney General for State. Complainant in person. Date of hearing: 21.12.2022. Order Through this petition, Siddique petitioner seeks his release on post arrest bail in connection case FIR No. C-156 dated 10.03.2020 registered for offences under Sections 17 & 22 of Emigration Ordinance, 1979, at Police Station FIA Circle Gujranwala.
2. Arguments heard. Record perused.
3. Though as per crime report petitioner along with his co-accused Bilal Ahmad being in connivance with each other, received an amount of Rs . 960,000/-with the promise to arrange police jobs for complainant and his friend, in Bahrain that he could not do. Petitioner was arrested in this case on 01.10.2022 but during his physical custody neither any passport nor other documents or amount could be recovered at his instance. Investigation Officer present in Court concedes that the petitioner does not have any previous criminal record and even not a single complaint against him is in his notice. He further admits that the petitioner neither is a travel agent nor holds any such like office. Except the oral evidence, no documentary evidence with regard to the alleged promise of the petitioner or receiving of amount of Rs . 960,000/-from the complainant is available on file. The cheque in possession of the complainant statedly of the petitioner’s account is of Rs . 460,000/-. These circumstances make the case of petitioner one of further inquiry into his guilt entitling him to the grant of post arrest bail in this case. Even otherwise, Section 17 of Emigration Ordinance, 1979, is punishable for five years sentence of imprisonment while though Section 22 of the Ordinance ibid carries sentence of imprisonment exceeding up to fourteen years yet alternate sentence of fine is also provided for the said offence. In the circumstances mentioned supra, keeping the petitioner further incarcerated till conclusion of trial, not in sight, does not look justified. Hence, this petition is allowed and the petitioner is admitted to post arrest bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum-of Rs . 200,000/-with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court. (A.A.K.) Bail allowed