1994 P Cr (PLP)

Applicant Rehan Rashid son of Rashid Ahmed is detained in F.I.R. Crime No. 271/1993 registered at Police Station F.I.A., I&AS, Passport Cell, Karachi for an offence under section 22(b), Emigration Ordinance, 1979. The applicant had applied for bail before the lower Court but the same was rejected. As such, on his behalf the present bail application has been filed. The case of the prosecution is that an enquiry was being conducted by the F.IA. Authorities on the basis of complaints made by various persons against the present applicant. It transpired that the applicant was resident of Flat No.2109, Defence Garden, Defence Housing Authority, Karachi. In the year 1992-93 he being an unauthorised Overseas Employment Promoter with the active connivance of other persons received various amount from various persons for providing them employment at Bahrain but they failed to fulfil their promise. Accordingly the case was registered in the course of which the applicant was arrested and challaned/complaint filed as required by section 24(6) of the Emigration Ordinance, 1979. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant and so also Mr. Fareed Ahmed Dayo learned counsel for the State. The latter has opposed this bail application. It was submitted by the learned counsel that according to the complaint various amounts were taken by Abdul Qayyum, co-accused. It is very clearly mentioned that the said co-accused Abdul Qayyum had in fact promised that he can provide employment to various persons. As such, in the presence of witnesses/alleged victims, a sum of Rs.8,68,000 was paid to Abdul Qayyum by Rehan Rashid alongwith 150 passports for arranging employment visas but the said Abdul Qayyum neither sent those persons abroad nor refunded the amount and passports. In the circumstances, it was rightly argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that in fact he is the star witness in this case against the said Abdul Qayyum but unfortunately he has been made accused in this case. It is not the prosecution case that the applicant at any time had either undertaken or promised to provide employment to anybody. Another circumstance is that the offence under section 22(b) of the Emigration Ordinance, 1979 is punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 14 years, or with fine or with both. This virtually means that the punishment provided is not merely 14 years' imprisonment but the trial Court can award a sentence of fine only. In the present facts and circumstances of the case it cannot be determined at this stage whether the applicant will be sentenced to imprisonment or he will be sentenced with fine only. Apart from it, the applicant is no more required in this case as the challan has already been submitted. During the course of investigation no incriminating articles were, recovered from the applicant. In such similar circumstances bail was granted to the accused in a case reported in Muhammad Iqbal v. The State 1985 M L D 1072. "Applicant Iqbal had received money from several persons on the pretext of providing jobs to them in Saudi Arabia. The passports of the persons were recovered from the house of co-accused and it was contended that no incriminating articles was recovered from the applicant and he was no more required for the purpose of investigation. In the circumstances, bail was granted." In another case reported in Arshad Mahmood v The State 1985 P Cr. L J 2048 Arshad Mehmood was charged for having committed an offence under section 22(b) of the Emigration Ordinance, 1979 and the allegation was that he had collected a sum of Rs.1,68,000 from various persons in order to provide them employment abroad. It was contended that the said offence was punishable with imprisonment for 14 years or with fine or with both. As such the punishment of 14 years' R.I. was not exclusive and therefore, the restriction contained in section 497(1), Cr.P.C. was not attracted. Reliance was placed on the observation made in an unreported decision in criminal bail application No.566 of 1981. While following the said authority bail was granted to the applicant." In the present case also the position is the same. No incriminating article of any kind has been recovered from the accused/applicant. The investigation has been completed and the applicant is in custody for the last more than two months. In the circumstances, bail is granted to the applicant on his furnishing two sureties in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 each and P.R. bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court. By a short order, dated 30-9-1993 bail was granted to the applicant, these are the reasons for the same. N.H.Q./R-270/K Bail granted.