2017 PLP 371 (YLRN)

SHAHNAWAZ TARIQ, J.

Through captioned post-arrest bail application, applicant Mst. Sana Ilyas daughter of Muhammad Ilyas has impugned order dated 14.01.2016, whereby her earlier bail application was declined by the Court of learned Special Judge Anti-Corruption, Central-II, Karachi.

2. Relevant facts narrated in instant application are that complainant Rizwan Ali reported at P.S FIA, AHT Circle, Karachi, that he and his friends have been deprived by Khalid Naeem and Mst. Sana Ilyas on the pretext of providing private service in Dubai and they received amount of Rs.950,000/- and provided them visas and tickets, which were proved to be fake at departure counter of Karachi airport. Complainant approached accused Khalid Naeem to refund his money and he executed an lqrarnama to refund the said amount, hence instant FIR.

3. Learned Counsel for applicant has contended that applicant is innocent and has been falsely involved by the complainant only to compel her for refund of alleged amount which was allegedly received by accused Khalid Naseem amount from complainant; that she neither received said amount nor signed any receiving voucher nor executed any Iqrarnama to refund the said amount; that applicant has no specific role in the commission of alleged offence; that applicant is behind the bars since about 6 months but prosecution has failed to examine a single witness to prove allegations against the applicant, hence her further detention will serve no usefull purpose.

4. Learned Standing Counsel vehemently opposed the plea of bail advanced by learned counsel for the applicant and contended that applicant was also one of the companion of the main accused, who has committed the alleged offence.

5. Heard arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, which reflects that complainant lodged FIR on 30.09.2015, at 1900 hours at police station FIA AHT Circle, Karachi regarding commission of alleged offence, nevertheless there is no specific date, time and mode of payment of said amount to accused Khalid Naeem by complainant and his companions. Subsequently, an lqrarnama to refund the amount was also executed between main accused Khalid Naeem and complainant, which was neither signed by present applicant nor she was available at the time of its execution, thus allegations leveled by complainant require serious consideration for which recording of evidence of parties is essential. The offence under section 22(b) Emigration Ordinance, 1979, is punishable up to 14 years or fine or both, which reflects that alleged offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497(1) and it is for the learned trial Court to award sentence or impose fine to accused at the conclusion of the trial. It is well settled that while adjudging the question of bail, Court has to consider the minimum aspect of the sentence provided for the alleged offence in the schedule. Furthermore, applicant being a lady is also entitled for concession of bail under section 497(1), Cr.P.C.

6. For the foregoing facts and circumstances, applicant has succeeded to make out her case for grant of bail on the ground of further inquiry as envisaged under section 497(2) Cr.P.C. Consequently, applicant is admitted to bail subject to furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs.100,000/- (Rupees One Lac) and PR bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.

7. The observations made above are tentative in nature and the trial Court shall decide the subject case purely on its merits. WA/S-102/Sindh Bail granted.