1997 PLP 2994 (MLD)

‑‑‑‑S. 497‑‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.406/420‑‑‑Emigration Ordinance (XVIII of 1979), S.18/22‑‑‑Bail‑‑‑Trial of accused had commenced but the same was delayed on account of the non‑availability of his counsel‑‑‑Trial of the case being in progress, any comment on the merits of the case was likely to prejudice the ultimate findings to be given by the Trial Court‑‑‑Bail was disallowed to accused in circumstances with the direction to Trial Court to conclude the trial within six weeks. Shamshad Ullah Cheema for Petitioner. Syed Mazahir Naqvi for the State. A case under sections 406 and 420, P.P.C. read with section 18/22 of the Emigration Ordinance (XVIII of 1979) was registered against the petitioner as he cheated the complainant, a student of B.A. by holding out a promise that he would take him to Hong Kong. Instead of sending him to Hong Kong, he was taken to Thailand where he was deserted by the petitioner and his brother who had also accompanied him up‑to that country. The complainant was never sent to Hong Kong as per alleged promise.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has requested for bail on the ground that the case is false and is motivated by previous litigation and enmity between the patties; that the offences under, sections 406 and 420, P.P.C. do not fall within the prohibitory clause; that section 22 of the Emigration Ordinance, 1979, is added dishonestly although it is not attracted to the facts of the present case; and that the petitioner is behind the bars for the last over one year and as such he is entitled to bail even on statutory ground.

3. Learned State counsel has submitted that the petitioner has already been charged for the aforesaid offences by the learned trial Court, but the trial has not yet concluded because on a number of dates, learned counsel for the petitioner was not available although the witnesses were in attendance. Secondly, it is contended that the offence under section 22 of the Emigration Ordinance, 1979, falls within the prohibitory clause and that the bail in such cases is not to be granted in routine.

4. I have considered the foregoing contentions and have also gone through the certified copies of the orders passed by the learned trial Court produced by the petitioner alongwith this petition. The charge in this case was framed on 7‑10‑1996. Thereafter, the case was adjourned thrice on account of the adjournments sought by the learned defence counsel. As such, the observation made by the learned trial Court that the trial was delayed on account of the non‑availability of the learned defence counsel appears to be well- founded. Since the trial of the case is in progress, therefore, any comment on the merits of the case is to be avoided lest it may prejudice the ultimate findings to be given by the learned trial Judge. The petitioner has, therefore, no case for bail at this stage. The petition is dismissed with the direction to the learned trial Court that the trial will be concluded within six weeks on the receipt of this order. A report to that effect shall be sent to the Deputy Registrar (J) of this Court. N.H.Q./N‑49/L Bail refused.