2004 PLP 2264 (YLR)
KAMRAN SALEEM — Petitioner Versus Syed ARIF BOKHARI and 4 others — Respondents
| Citation | 2004 PLP 2264 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Ch. Iftikhar Hussain, .1 |
| Parties | KAMRAN SALEEM — Petitioner Versus Syed ARIF BOKHARI and 4 others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2004 PLP 2264 (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 2004 PLP 2264 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Ch. Iftikhar Hussain, .1.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2004 PLP 2264 (YLR) (KAMRAN SALEEM — Petitioner Versus Syed ARIF BOKHARI and 4 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Nasim Ali Hasnain for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S.497(2)
Emigration Ordinance (XVIII of 1979), Ss.17 & 22
Only allegation against accused in the F.I,R. was that he alongwith co-accused had demanded alleged amount from complainant for getting her employment abroad
No allegation against accused that he actually had received any part of amount directly from the complainant--Complainant in her statement under S.161, Cr.P.C. had stated that accused had simply introduced her with co-accused
Was yet to be seen whether accused could be held liable for alleged offence or not
Case of accused, in , circumstances called for further inquiry into his guilt which fell within purview of subsection (2) of S.497, Cr. P. C.
Accused, who was behind the bars for the last about four months, was previous non-convict
Case for enlargement on bail having been made out, accused was admitted to bail. Javed Sarfraz Standing Counsel for the State.
Judgment & Decree
Petitioner Kamran Saleem through the instant petition has sought for post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.469 of 2003 registered under sections 17 and 22 of the Emigration Ordinance, 1979 with F.I.A.(PC), Lahore on 27-9-2003.
2. Briefly the prosecution case as per F.I.R. is that Ashir Javed Mall, Shahid Javed lqbal and Kamran Saleem (petitioners) had demanded an amount of Rs.2,60,000 from the complainant Mst. Shamim Sher for getting her employment in England. She in the presence of the witnesses had given this amount in two instalments to Ashir Javed Mall and Shahid Javed Iqbal but they thereafter neither sent her abroad nor returned her money.
3. It has been contended on his behalf that he has falsely been roped in; that there is no evidence against him that he actually had received or secured any amount from the complainant for getting her employment in England and so the case against him calls for further inquiry into his guilt and so is covered under subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. and that he is behind the bars and previous non-convict.
4. Conversely, the learned counsel for the State has opposed the petition on the ground that he is named in the F.I.R.; and that he alongwith his aforesaid co-accused has demanded the said amount from the complainant and is prima facie connected with the offence under section 22 of the Emigration Ordinance, 1979.
5. I have carefully considered the submissions made from both the sides with the help of available record.
6. There is only allegation against him in the F.I.R. that he alongwith his co-accused Ashir Javed Mall and Shahid Javed Iqbal has demanded the said amount from the complainant for getting her employment in England.
7. There is no allegation against him in the same that he actually has received' any part of that amount directly from her. There is rather her statement under section 161, Cr.P.C. on the record purported to have been recorded on 25-10-2003. The same is to the effect that he simply has introduced her with his those co-accused. And similar are the statements under section 161, Cr.P.C. of two witnesses namely Khalid, Latif Bhatti and Rana Iftikhar Ahmad. Hence, it is yet to be seen that if he can be held liable for the alleged offence or not. His case, therefore, calls for further inquiry into his guilt and falls within the purview of subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C.
8. He is stated to be behind the bars for the last about four months and previous non-convict, which has not been controverted by the other side.
9. In these circumstances, the case for his enlargement on bail has been made out. His bail petition, therefore, is accepted and he is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 (Rupees one lac) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Special Judge (Central), Lahore. Copy Dasti on payment of usual charges. H.B.T./K-39/L Bail granted.