2005 PLP 980 (MLD)
Qazi MUHAMMAD AMIN ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 2005 PLP 980 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Mian Muhammad Najam‑uz‑Zaman, J |
| Parties | Qazi MUHAMMAD AMIN ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2005 PLP 980 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2005 PLP 980 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Mian Muhammad Najam‑uz‑Zaman, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2005 PLP 980 (MLD) (Qazi MUHAMMAD AMIN ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Malik Aftab Aslam for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑S.497‑‑‑Emigration Ordinance (XVIII of 1979), S.17/22 ‑‑‑ Bail refusal of‑‑‑Four passports of intending emigrants had been recovered from the house of accused during investigation‑‑‑Fifteen witnesses had specifically made statements before the police that the accused had received huge amount for sending them abroad for employment but later on failed to fulfill his commitment, nor he had returned the amount‑‑ Sufficient evidence, thus, was prima facie, available on record to link the accused with the commission of the offence under S.22 of the Emigration Ordinance, 1979, which fell within the prohibitory clause of S.497(1), Cr.P.C. Bail was declined to accused in circumstances. Ch. Tariq Javaid for the Complainant. Nasir Zaman, S.I. F.I.A.
Judgment & Decree
Ch. Tariq Javaid for the Complainant. Nasir Zaman, S.I. F.I.A. Qazi Muhammad Amin petitioner seeks post‑arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.C‑62 of 2003, dated 14‑2‑2003 registered under sections 17/22 of Emigration Ordinance 1979, at Police Station Passport Cell. Lahore.
2. In nutshell case against the petitioner is that he along with one Major Muhammad Sadiq deceitfully received Rs.28,00,000 from Sufi Muhammad Aslam complainant on the pretext of sending his fifteen elatives abroad for employment. Allegedly, petitioner did not honour he commitment nor he returned the amount. During investigation four passports were also recovered from the house of the petitioner. Petitioner was arrested on 18‑3‑2003. His bail application was dismissed by the Special Judge, Central, Lahore vide order dated 4‑6‑2003. Hence the instant petition.
3. Bail is sought on the grounds that the petitioner did not receive any money from the complainant party as alleged in the F.I.R. It is submitted that in fact petitioner had paid Rs.15,80,000 to the complainant for sending him and his cousin abroad and in order to usurp that amount complainant had falsely implicated the petitioner in this case. It is also submitted that there is nothing on the record to connect the petitioner with the commission of the offence; petitioner has no previous history; he never went abroad as alleged in the F.I.R. and in the circumstances, petitioner is entitled to the concession of bail. Conversely, learned counsel for the State has vehemently opposed the rant of bail.
4. Heard. File perused.
5. Record of this case reveals that during the investigation fou r passports of intending emigrants were recovered from the house of the petitioner. The agency has also brought on record the statements of fifteen a witnesses who have specifically deposed that petitioner along with his co‑accused had received huge amount for sending them abroad for employment but later on had failed to fulfill the commitment nor had returned the amount.
6. In the light of the data available on record prima facie there is ample evidence to connect the petitioner with the commission of offence under section 22 of Emigration Ordinance which falls within the prohibitory Clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. Finding no force in the instant petition the same stands dismissed. N.H.Q./M‑881/L Bail refused.