2006 PLP 330 (MLD)

M. BILAL KHAN, J.

Ghulam Ahmed son of Haji Noor Muhammad seeks his post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No. 164 of 2005 registered at Police Station F.I.A. Passport Cell, Gujranwala for offences under sections 17/22 of the Emigration Ordinance 1979 read with section 3 of the Prevention and Control of Human Trafficking Ordinance LIX of 2002 and section 489-F, P.P.C.

2. The case of the prosecution as it unfolded in the F.I.R. registered at the instance of Rustam Khan son of Muhammad Ashraf was that he had received a sum of Rs.8,98,000 from the complainant Rustam Khan for sending his brother Sajafat Ali to Canada for employment. According to the F.I.R. instead of sending him to Canada he was despatched to Sri Lanak from where he had to return home. It is also alleged in the F.I.R. that the petitioner had got a joint account opened at Muslim Commercial Bank Main Branch Daska, wherein an amount of Rs.4,00,000 was deposited by the complainant and his brother which amount was also defalcated by the petitioner. According to the complainant when the fraud was exposed and the money was demanded from the petitioner he issued several cheques in favour of the complainant which were however, dishonoured as a result of which case F.I.R. No.476 of 2004 was registered at Police Station City Daska, for offence under section 489-F, P.P.C. When a bail matter arising out of the said F.I.R. No.476 of 2004 came up before this Court a direction was issued that the investigation be conducted by F.I.A., as a result of which the instant F.I.R. had been recorded. 3.? The petitioner's plea for post-arrest bail did not find favour with the learned Special Judge (Central) Lahore, who dismissed his bail application vide order dated 30-6-2005. Hence the instant petition.

4. In support of petitioner's plea for bail his learned counsel Mr. Aftab Ahmed Bajwa submitted that the case against the petitioner is fabricated and false; that in fact the petitioner is a witness regarding transaction of money between the complainant and one Naseem Ahmed and that later on the complainant with ulterior motive got the instant case registered against the petitioner; that the story mentioned in F.I.R. No.476 of 2004 at Police Station City Daska under section 489-F, P.P.C. was different from the narration of facts given in the instant F.I.R.; that the petitioner has been maintaining right from the beginning that it was one Naseem son of Faqir who had received Rs.8,70,000 from the complainant and that the petitioner was only a witness of the said transaction; that the petitioner was forcibly made to sign some documents by the complainant party and further that the petitioner has filed a civil suit for cancellation of the said documents; that no recovery has been effected from the petitioner and neither he is a travel agent nor he owns any travel agency; that he is an old man of 60 years and being a sick and infirm. person he is entitled to the concession of bail under 1st Proviso to section 497(1), Cr.P.C. He finally argued that although the case had been registered as far back as on 16-5-2005, yet the challan has not been submitted and on this score alone he is entitled for the concession of bail.

5. On the other hand the petition for grant of bail was strenuously opposed by Mr. Jahangir Wahlah the learned Standing Counsel assisted by Ch. Sadaqat Ali, Advocate for the complainant.

6. The learned Standing Counsel submitted that there was ample material available against the petitioner connecting him with the alleged crime; that cheques issued by the petitioner had been dishonoured which fact is not denied by the petitioner himself; that opening of a joint account has also not been disputed by the petitioner; that the witnesses as also the complainant stand firm on the position taken by them and finally that the offences under sections 17/22 of the Emigration Ordinance, 1979 attracted the prohibitory clause of section 497(1), Cr.P.C.

7. I have given my anxious consideration to the respective pleas raised by the learned counsel for the parties.

8. There are serious allegations against the petitioner. He does not deny having issued cheques in favour of the complainant, which had later on been dishonoured. The filing of a civil suit by the petitioner seeking cancellation of certain documents which according to him had forcibly been obtained from him prima facie appears to be a devise adopted by the petitioner to make his case one of further inquiry. The act of filing of a civil suit does not in any manner advance his case for bail rather on the other hand it further clouds his credentials. The learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to show any reason for false implication of the petitioner. Mere old-age that too, if 60 years is to be treated as old age is not sufficient to release an accused person on bail if his case attracts the mischief of the prohibitory clause of section 497(1), Cr.P.C. During the course of hearing of this petition I have been told that there are several other enquires being conducted against the petitioner for similar allegations. Challan had been submitted in the trial Court on 14-9-2005.

9. In view of what has been stated above there are reasonable grounds available for believing that the petitioner is prima facie involved in an offence which attracts prohibitory clause of section 497(1), Cr.P.C.

10. For what has been discussed above there is no merit in this petition which is accordingly dismissed. N.H.Q/G-172/L?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Bail refused.