2004 PLP 1296 (YLR)

‑‑‑‑S. 497‑‑‑Emigration Ordinance (XVIII of 1979), S.17/22‑‑‑Bail, refusal of‑‑‑Accused had been specifically nominated in the F.I.R. as the sole perpetrator of the alleged offences with definite allegation‑‑ Prosecution witnesses including the complainant who had no reason for false implication of accused in the case had fully g involved him in their statements made before the Investigating Officer‑‑ Documentary evidence had cause on record to show that the accused had accepted receiving the relevant amount from the complainant for sending his nephew abroad for employment and now he was trying to shift his liability to somebody else‑‑ Accused had already been found guilty in the inquiry and the police investigation‑‑ Case of accused was hit by the prohibitory clause of S.497(1), Cr.P.C.‑‑‑Bail was declined to accused in circumstances. Saqib Saleem for Petitioner. Malik Muhammad Imtiaz Mahal for the Complainant. Mian Abdul Qayyum Anjum for the State. Through this petition Sheikh Shoaib Farooq petitioner has sought post arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.C‑138 of 2003 registered at Police Station F.I.A. Passport Circle, Lahore on 10‑4‑2003 for offences under sections 17/22 of the Emigration Ordinance, 1979.

2. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record it has been observed that the petitioner has teen specifically nominated in the F.I.R. as the sole perpetrator of the alleged offences and definite allegations have been leveled against him therein. It is not disputed that the complainant as well as the other witnesses mentioned in the F.I.R. have so far stood by their statements made before the Investigating Officer fully implicating the petitioner in the alleged offences. The learned counsel for the petitioner has remained unable to point out any background of ill‑will or bitterness between the parties so as to prompt the complainant and his witnesses to falsely implicate the petitioner in a case of this nature. It is of, some significance to mention here that the learned counsel for the petitioner has himself produced before this Court a copy of an agreement dated 20‑11‑2002 wherein the petitioner had accepted receiving the relevant amount from the complainant for arranging the sending of the complainant nephew namely Ghulam Hussain abroad for employment and had also agreed to return the relevant amount to the complainant. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also produced before this Court a copy of an order passed by the Federal Ombudsman on 17‑10‑2002 which shows that the present petitioner had lodged a complaint against one Naveed Ahmad Qureshi and another before the Federal Ombudsman and in that complaint too the petitioner had accepted receiving the relevant amount from the complainant for arranging the sending of his nephew abroad for employment. This apparently shows that the allegations leveled against the petitioner are not being denied by him and he is only trying to shift his liability to somebody else. An offence under section 22 of the Emigration Ordinance, 1979 attracts the prohibitory clause contained in subsection (1) of section 497, Cr.P.C. The petitioner has already been opined to be guilty in the inquiry an the investigation conducted in this case.

3. For what has been discussed above, prima facie reasonable grounds exist to believe in the petitioner's involvement in the alleged offences and this petition is, therefore, dismissed. N.H.Q./S‑11/L Bail refused.