1995 PLP 103 (MLD)

Ch. Ghulam Murtaza Khan for Petitioner. Faqir Muhammad Khokhar, Deputy Attorney‑General for the State. Date of hearing: 5th October 1994. The petitioner, who is involved in a case under sections 17/22 of the Emigration Ordinance, 1979 and section 6 of Passport Act, arising out of F.I.R. No.93 dated 1‑8‑1993, registered at Police Station, F.I.A., Passport Cell, Lahore, seeks to be admitted to bail.

2. Briefly the allegation against the petitioner is that he obtained a sum of Rs.1,25,000 from Zulfiqar Hussain and his four companions for sending them abroad.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that with respect to the same facts one Zulfiqar Hussain earlier got registered a case vide F.I.R. No.284 dated 22‑6‑1993 at Police Station, B‑Division, Sheikhupura under different sections of Pakistan Penal Code, in which the petitioner was allowed bail by this Court in Crl. M. No.361‑B/94, hence with malicious intention, the present case has been registered against the petitioner and the petitioner is behind the bars since 18‑8‑1993 without any meaningful progress in the trial. Even the challan has not been submitted in the trial Court. He further submitted that the petitioner challenged the registration of the aforesaid F.I.R. vide W.P. No.8490/93, which is still pending and as a counter‑blast, this present F.I.R. has been registered against him. The offence for which the petitioner is being charged does not fall within the propitiatory clause and he further submitted that the matter was purely of a commercial transaction. The petitioner being a promoter under Emigration Ordinance, hence he gave undertaking to the complainant. That he will send him abroad as and when vacancy is available and he has not taken the amount of Rs.1,25,000 from Zulfiqar Hussain and his four companions for sending them abroad. In the presence of this material the case against the petitioner is one of further inquiry, as it would be determined after the recording of some detailed evidence. Whether actually petitioner committed the offence or not.

4. Learned Deputy Attorney‑General assisted by the 1.0. has opposed this bail application but has conceded this fact that the petitioner is behind the bars since 18‑8‑1993 without there being meaningful progress in the trial.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. I find that the petitioner is behind the bars in this case since 18‑8‑1993 and no body can be kept behind the bars without there being meaningful progress in the trial by way of punishment and coupled with the facts mentioned g in the arguments the case against the petitioner seems to be one of further inquiry, so the petitioner is admitted to bail in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 (Rupees one lac only) with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court. N.H.Q./M‑1851/L Bail granted.