2017 P Cr (PLP)
Haji FAQIR KHAN — Petitioner Versus The STATE and another — Respondents
| Citation | 2017 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Peshawar |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | Haji FAQIR KHAN — Petitioner Versus The STATE and another — Respondents |
| Primary Law | (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), (c) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2017 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), (c) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2017 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Peshawar bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2017 P Cr (PLP) (Haji FAQIR KHAN — Petitioner Versus The STATE and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Arshad Hussain Yousafzai for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497(2)
Emigration Ordinance (XVIII of 1979), Ss.18(b) & 22(b)
Arranging fake visa for abroad
Prosecution case was that accused extorted an amount of Rs. two lac from complainant with the false promise of sending him abroad for employment
Complainant was abandoned there and came back to Pakistan
Record showed that an agreement was executed between accused and complainant, whereby it was agreed that in lieu of Rs. Three lac, accused would be bound to provide visa/work permit within a period of one month by sending the complainant abroad
Rupees one lac was paid to accused in presence of witnesses
Statement of solitary witness had not been recorded
Witness had not been cited in whose presence, an amount of Rs. One lac was paid
Record showed that accused had not been nominated in the present case
Question as to whether complainant was cheated by the accused or not needed further probe in the matter
Accused had not been directly charged in the FIR
Accused was charged for the offence after conducting preliminary inquiry, after two and half years of the occurrence
Facts and circumstances had made out the case within the ambit of further inquiry
Accused was admitted to bail accordingly.
S. 497(2)
Emigration Ordinance (XVIII of 1979), Ss.18(b) & 22(b)
Causing any person to emigrate fraudulently, receiving money for providing foreign employment
Offences under Ss. 18 & 22 of the Emigration Ordinance, 1979 provided alternate punishment of fine
If offence was proved against the accused, he would be awarded punishment to the extent of 14 years or fine or both
If bail was refused, it would amount punishment without trial
Bail was allowed in circumstances.
S. 497
Principle
Observations made in bail matter were purely tentative in nature and would not prejudice the proceedings before the Trial Court.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD YOUNIS THAHEEM, J.
Accused/petitioner Haji Faqir Khan seeks his release on bail in case FIR No. 81 dated 29.09.2016 charged under sections 18(b), 22(b) Emigration Ordinance, 1979 registered at Police Station Aza Khel, Nowshera.
2. Prior to this petition, the petitioner approached to Judge Special Court Immigration and Central Anti Corruption Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Peshawar for the grant of bail which was turned down vide order dated 05.12.2016.
3. The above stated FIR was lodged in the light of preliminary inquiry conducted upon written complaint filed by Shahid Khan whereby he alleged that Haji Faqir Khan extorted an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- from him with the false promise of sending him abroad (Turkey) for employment, however he was abandoned in Turkey thereby he came back to Pakistan on emergency passport and charged the accused Haji Faqir Khan for the commission of above stated offence.
4. Having heard arguments of learned counsel for the parties, record perused with their valuable assistance.
5. Perusal of the record would reveal that an agreement deed dated 08.11.2013 was executed between the accused/petitioner Haji Faqir Khan and Fazl-e-Mula whereby it was written that in respect of rupees three lacs accused/petitioner will bound to provide Visa/work permit within a period of one month by sending the complainant Shahid Khan to Turkey through Iran and to this effect rupees one lac was paid to the accused/petitioner in the presence of witnesses but the statement of this solitary witness Fazl-e-Mula through which above mentioned agreement deed has been executed with the petitioner Haji Faqir Khan, has not been recorded. As per allegation of complainant that the accused/petitioner has extorted rupees two lacs but no one has been cited as witness in whose presence another one lac has been paid. Moreover the record further speaks that Qasim Wardak has also been not nominated as an accused in the present case through which complainant was sent to Turkey and accused/petitioner has been given the role of agent for sending him abroad so whether complainant was cheated by the present accused/petitioner or was sent to abroad by his own sweet will, needs further probe in the matter.
6. The present accused/petitioner has not been directly charged in the First Information Report and after the delay of two and half years of the occurrence had been charged for the aforesaid offence after conducting preliminary inquiry. Even otherwise, the "offences under sections 18 and 22 of the Emigration Ordinance provide alternate punishment of fine, therefore, if offence is proved against petitioner then in that eventuality, he may be awarded punishment upto extent of 14 years or fine or both and if bail is refused it would amount punishment without trial so accused/petitioner is entitled to the concession of bail.
7. Resultantly, this bail petition is accepted and accused/petitioner is admitted to bail by furnishing bail bonds to the tune of Rs.2,00,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Judicial Magistrate concerned.
8. Needless to mention that the above observations being purely tentative in nature, should in no way prejudice the proceedings before the learned trial Court. These are the reasons for the short order of even date. JK/31-P Bail granted.