2016 PLP 355 (YLR)
IMRAN YOUNAS — Petitioner Versus The STATE and another — Respondents
| Citation | 2016 PLP 355 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Peshawar |
| Bench Members | Waqar Ahmad Seth, J |
| Parties | IMRAN YOUNAS — Petitioner Versus The STATE and another — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2016 PLP 355 (YLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2016 PLP 355 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Peshawar bench comprising: Waqar Ahmad Seth, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2016 PLP 355 (YLR) (IMRAN YOUNAS — Petitioner Versus The STATE and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Arshad Hussain Yousaf Zai for Appellant.
- Mussarat Ullah Khan, DAG for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 28th September, 2015.
Headnotes / Summary
S.497
Emigration Ordinance (XVIII of 1979), Ss.18(b) & 22(b)
Fraudulently inducing a person to emigrate abroad for the purpose of securing employment
None of the offences with which accused was charged attracted prohibitory clause of S.497, Cr.P.C.
No reason existed to withhold the concession of bail; when grant of bail in such like cases, was a rule and refusal was an exception
Abscondance of accused was at the best a corroborative evidence and not a charge against accused
Judgment & Decree
WAQAR AHMAD SETH, J.
Petitioner who is charged in a case registered against him under sections 18(b) and 22(b) of the Emigration Ordinance, 1979, vide FIR No.52 dated 24.6.2013, Police Station FIA, Peshawar, seeks his release on bail mainly on the ground that none of the offences he is charged with falls within the ambit of prohibitory clause.
2. As against that, the learned appearing on behalf of the State, opposed the grant of bail by submitting that the petitioner is directly charged in the FIR and that his abscondence for over a year, prima facie, connects him with the crime. He next submitted that that the petitioner has committed fraud with the complainant as such he does not deserve the concession of bail notwithstanding the fact that the offences he is charged with do not attract prohibitory clause.
3. I have gone through the record carefully and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties.
4. As none of the offences the petitioner is charged with attracts prohibitory clause, I do not see any strong reason to withhold the concession of bail when grant of bail in such like case is a rule and refusal is an exception, especially when mere abscondence cannot be stretched to unworkable extremes, that too, when it, at its best, can be used as corroborative and not evidence of the charge.
5. For the reasons discussed above, this petition is allowed and the petitioner is directed to be released on bail, provided, he furnishes bail bond in the sum of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rs. Five lacs) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court, who is to ensure that the sureties arc local, reliable and men of means. This is the detailed order furnishing reasons to my short order of today's' date. HBT/395/P Bail granted.