2005 P Cr (PLP)

‑‑‑‑S. 497(2)‑‑‑Immigration Ordinance (XVIII of 1979), S.17(22)‑‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑‑Further inquiry‑‑‑Allegations levelled against accused in the F.I.R. as well as in statements recorded under S.161, Cr.P.C., were merely general and collective in nature‑‑‑Complainant party had failed to specify as to when accused had received any money from complainant, how much money was received by petitioner and where such money was paid to the petitioner‑‑‑No documentary evidence was available on record so as to substantiate vague and general allegations levelled against accused by complainant party‑‑‑Role allegedly played by accused during entire transaction was merely secondary in nature to that allegedly played by co‑accused who had already been admitted to post‑arrest bail on basis of a compromise between him and complainant party‑‑‑Nothing had been recovered from possession of accused during investigation of case‑‑ Investigation of case having already been finalized to the extent of accused, his physical custody was no longer required for purpose of investigation‑‑‑Case against accused calling for further inquiry into his guilt within purview of subsection (2) of S.497, Cr.P.C., he was admitted to bail. Ch. Imran Raza Chadhar for Petitioner. Javed Sarfraz Sheikh, Standing Counsel for the State. Date of hearing: 7th July, 2004. Through this petition Rana Muhammad Ayub petitioner has sought post‑arrest bail in case F. I. R. No. 108 registered at Police Station F.I.A. Passport Circle, Lahore on 22‑1‑2004 for offences under sections 17/22 of the Immigration Ordinance, 1979.

2. After hearing the learned counsel for, the parties and going through the record it has straightaway been observed that the allegations levelled against the petitioner in the F.I.R. as well as in the statements recorded under section 161, Cr.P.C. are merely general and collective in nature. Throughout the investigation of this case the complainant party 'has failed to specify as to when the petitioner had received any money from the complainant, how much money was received by the petitioner and where such money was paid to the petitioner. There is no documentary evidence available on the record of investigation so as to substantiate the above‑mentioned vague and generalized allegations levelled against the petitioner by the complainant party. A perusal of the F.I.R. as well as the record of investigation shows that apparently the role allegedly played by the petitioner during the entire transaction was merely secondary in nature to that allegedly played by the petitioner's co‑accused namely Peer Talib Hussain who has already been admitted to post‑arrest bail by the learned trial Court on the basis of a compromise between him and the complainant party. Admittedly nothing had been recovered from the petitioner's possession during the investigation of this case. The investigation of this case has already been finalized to the extent of the petitioner and, thus, his physical custody is no longer required at this stage for the purposes of investigation.

3. For what has been discussed above the case against the petitioner calls for further inquiry into his guilt within the purview of subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. This petition is, therefore, allowed and the petitioner is admitted to bail subject to furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 (Rupees one hundred thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court. H.B.T.M‑743/L Bail granted.