2006 PLP 1689 (MLD)
MUHAMMAD NAWAZ — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2006 PLP 1689 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD NAWAZ — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2006 PLP 1689 (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 2006 PLP 1689 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2006 PLP 1689 (MLD) (MUHAMMAD NAWAZ — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Javed Iqbal for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 498
Emigration Ordinance (XVIII of 1979), S.17/22 --Pre-arrest bail, refusal of
Accused was nominated in the F.I.R. with the clear allegation of fraudulently depriving the complainant of an amount of Rs. 600,000 along with his passport and I.D. Card on the false promise of sending him to U.S.A. and for providing him employment there
After the dismissal of his application for pre-arrest bail by the Special Judge, Central accused had disappeared and had not surrendered himself
Accused during the course of enquiry had been found guilty by the prosecution agency and thereafter the F.I.R. was registered against him
F.I.A. , therefore, had no mala fide reason to falsely implicate the accused in the case in connivance with the complainant
Extraordinary concession of bail before arrest was refused to accused in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
RUSTAM ALI MALIK, J.
The petitioner seeks bail before arrest in case F.I.R. No.298 of 2004 registered on 30-3-2004 in Police Station F.I.A., Passport Circle, Lahore under sections 17/22 of Emigration Ordinance, 1979.
2. The F.I.R. was registered after an enquiry conducted by the F.I.A. on the complaint of one Khizar Hayat who had stated therein that Muhammad Nawaz accused had fraudulently deprived him of an amount of Rs.600,000 along with his passport and I.D. card, on the false promise of sending him to U.S.A. and for providing him employment abroad. However, he had neither managed any employment for him in U.S.A. nor had returned the said amount. Hence, the matter was reported to the F.I.A.
3. Arguments have been heard and record perused.
4. The petitioner is clearly named in the F.I.R. and a clear overt act is attributed him. The allegation against him as mentioned above is that of fraudulently depriving the complainant of an amount of Rs.600,000 along with his passport and I.D. card on the false promise of sending him to U.S.A. and for providing him employment there. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner is quite innocent in the matter and the case against the petitioner is the outcome of mala fide on the part of the complainant and F.I.A. authorities and that during the course of enquiry it had become clear that the petitioner had not committed any such offence as alleged in the F.I.R. and the brother of the complainant himself admitted during the proceedings before the Punchayat that it was the accused who had given the amount of Rs.9,25,000 to him for sending his son Javed Ahmad to U.S.A. The learned counsel for the petitioner has asserted that in fact the matter relates to rendition of accounts as the brother of the complainant and the present petitioner are Dealers in spare parts of Bulldozers.
5. The learned counsel for the complainant has pointed out that after the dismissal of the application for pre-arrest bail by the learned Special Judge Central, Lahore on 19-4-2004, the petitioner had disappeared and had not surrendered 'himself. It has been mentioned above that during the course of enquiry, the petitioner was found guilty by the prosecution agency and it was due to the said reason that the F.I.R. was registered against him. Hence, it cannot be alleged that the F.I.A. had any mala fide reason to falsely implicate the petitioner in a case of this nature, in connivance with the complainant.
6. In view of what has been stated above, it is not a fit case for the grant of extraordinary concession of pre-arrest bail. The bail application is accordingly dismissed. N.H.Q./M-1276/L Pre-arrest bail refused.