2007 P Cr (PLP)

HASNAT AHMAD KHAN, J.

Ghulam Sakina petitioner has sought bail in case F.I.R. No.77 of 2000 dated 11-8-2000, registered at Police Station Crime Circle F.I.A. Multan in respect of offences under sections 17/22 of the Emigration Ordinance, 1979.

2. Briefly the prosecution story as narrated in the F.I.R. is that the petitioner along with her co-accused without having any valid licence deceived Shamshad Bibi the complainant on the pretext of providing four employment visas of Saudi Arabia to her and obtained Rs.50,000 in cash and Rs.50,000 in the shape of gold ornaments in the year 1999 in the presence of the witnesses but the petitioner neither managed for the visas nor did she return the amount/golden ornaments of the complainant lady, obtained for said purpose. On the basis of complaint filed by the complainant the F.I.A. authorities found the petitioner as well as Maqbool Hussain co-accused as guilty and registered the case which had resulted the arrest and incarceration of the petitioner.

3. In support of this petition learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that there is a delay of more than one year in lodging the F.I.R.; that no specific time and date of occurrence has been given by the complainant; that the petitioner being a lady (widow aged about 60/65 years) deserves the concession of bail. As far as the allegation of declaring the petitioner as P.O. is concerned the learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that notices and warrants against the petitioner were issued on the address/residence which had been abandoned by the petitioner, therefore, said proceedings have got no value in the eyes of law. He adds that the complainant had malafidely got the present case registered as a counterblast to Writ Petition No.9877 of 1999 filed by the petitioner against the complainant as well as Younas who has been cited as a witness in the present F.I.R. 3-A. This bail application is pending since 23rd of February, 2007. On the first date of hearing notice was issued to the State as well as the complainant. On 19th of March the case was adjourned considering the fact that the notice was not served on the complainant. On the next date of hearing i.e. 3rd April, 2007 Mst. Shamshad Bibi, complainant duly appeared but on the said date case was adjourned. On 25th of April, 2007 the petition was adjourned on the request of the complainant but with a warning to her that no further opportunity would be given to her. Today a clerk of some counsel tried to file power of attorney on behalf of the complainant who sought an adjournment on the ground that her newly engaged counsel is not feeling well. Conduct of the complainant shows that her only interest is to prolong/delay the matter on one pretext or the other, consequently, the request for adjournment of the case made by the complainant, which has been seriously opposed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, is turned down.

4. On merits the complainant has opposed the bail application tooth and nail by contending that the petitioner having defrauded the complainant is not entitled to bail.

5. After hearing the arguments and going through the record I have gathered that no date or even the month of occurrence has been provided by the complainant while getting the case registered. Similarly the complainant has failed to produce any receipt showing the payment of alleged amount to the petitioner. Maqbool Hussain co-accused who was indisputedly old and blind Person was declared innocent. There is a background of animosity and prevailing between the complainant and the petitioner. I have been further-apprised that before the lodging of the present case the petitioner had filed the above mentioned writ petition seeking registration of case against the present complainant and Younas who has been cited as witness in the present case with the allegation that said Younas had defrauded the petitioner i.e. Ghulam Sakina to the tune of Rs.1,36,000 on the pretext of sending her abroad. It was further alleged in said writ petition that said Younas, the present complainant and some other persons had looted certain articles including cash after barging into the house of the petitioner. Said writ petition was disposed of by this Court vide order, dated 4th of November, 1999. Besides that it has been alleged by the petitioner that her sons were abducted by the present complainant and other persons upon which a habeas corpus was filed in this Court as a result whereof the children of the petitioner were recovered and released. This allegation duly finds mention in the body of above mentioned writ petition. All the said facts show that the allegations of the complainant levelled against the petitioner in the present F.I.R. require further 'inquiry. The petitioner being a lady is entitled to bail on said ground also. Besides that she is suffering incarceration since 8-2-2007 and her physical custody is no more required. Consequently, this bail application is accepted and the petitioner is allowed bail subject to her furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.2,00,000 (Rupees two lacs) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court. H.B.T./G-48/L Bail granted.