2009 P Cr (PLP)

M. BILAL KHAN, J.

Javaid Iqbal son of Muhammad Arif, petitioner, who is involved in case F.I.R. No.189 of 2005, dated 28-11-2005, registered with Police Station FIA, Faisalabad, for offences under sections 17/22 of the Emigration Ordinance, 1979, by filing this petition, seeks post-arrest bail.

2. The allegation in the F.I.R. registered at the instance of Rauf Ahmad son of Ghulam Rasool, complainant, resident of Tehsil Phalia District Mandi Bahauddin, was that the petitioner along with his co-accused had received US $25,000 from the complainant and one Rafaqat Ali, in the United States of America for arranging their nationality, Green Cards of U.S.A. and for their employment but thereafter, they failed to provide any thing as promised: The complainant and Rafaqat Ali were deported to Pakistan; on arrival in Pakistan they demanded their aforesaid amount, whereupon the accused initially promised to return the same but ultimately refused to do so.

3. The petitioner's plea for post-arrest bail found favour with the learned Special Judge (Central), Faisalabad who admitted him to bail vide order, dated 21-5-2007. The petitioner remained absent before the said Court as a result of which his bail had been cancelled on account of non-appearance. Thereafter, he approached this Court by means of Criminal Miscellaneous No.5057/B of 2007 and in order to enable him to move the trial Court, he had been allowed protective ad interim pre-arrest by my learned brother Tariq Shamim, J. vide order, dated 10-7-2007. The petitioner failed to furnish bail bond before the lower Court as a consequence whereof his bail had been rejected vide order, dated 26-7-2007. Having been unsuccessful in getting the relief of pre-arrest bail, he again approached this Court through Criminal Miscellaneous No.2273/B of 2008 which had been dismissed in limine on 24-3-2008. In the second round the petitioner again appeared before the learned Special Judge (Central), Faisalabad for post-arrest bail, which too had been turned down by the said Court on 9-7-2008., Hence this third petition.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record.

5. It has been observed that the petitioner is duly named in the F.I.R. During the course of inquiry held by FIA, the petitioner and his co-accused Muhammad Khalid were found to be involved in the transaction. The allegation as contained in the F.I.R. is duly supported by the affectees i.e. the complainant and Rafaqat Ali in their statements under section 161, Cr.P.C. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that since the offence had not been committed within the territorial limits of Pakistan, the petitioner is entitled to the concession of bail, has no legs to stand as sections 3 and 4 of the Pakistan Penal Code furnish a complete answer to the said contention. There is nothing available on record to suggest that the case against the petitioner is a product of any mala fide or ill-will. The conduct of the petitioner before the lower Court is also not appreciable. The offence under section 22 of the Ordinance (ibid), entails maximum punishment for a term, which may extend to fourteen years or with fine or with both. The petitioner is not entitled to the concession of bail. This petition is accordingly dismissed. N.H.Q. /J-38/L Bail refused.