Post Arrest Bail granted in Dubai Visa Case

 PLJ 2019 Cr.C. 243

[Lahore High Court, Multan Bench]

Present: Tariq Saleem Sheikh, J.

MUHAMMAD ASLAM --Petitioner

versus

STATE etc.--Respondents

Crl. Misc. No. 6664-B of 2018, decided on 17.1.2019.

Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 (V of 1898)--

----S. 497(2)--Emigration Ordinance, (XVIII of 1979), S. 17/22--Post arrest bail grant of--Further inquiry--Allegation against petitioner is that he received a sum of Rs. 700,000/- from complainant in two installments to arrange employment visas for him and his brother for Dubai--However, neither he provided them promised visas nor returned their money--Petitioner is a previous non-convict and is behind bars. He has joined investigation and is not required by police for any further probe--His trial is not likely to be concluded in near future--No useful purpose would be served in keeping him in jail for an indefinite period, post arrest bail was allowed.

                                                                                       [P. 244] A & B

Mr. Abdul Qayyum Rao, Advocate for Petitioner.

Mr. Khush Bakht Khan, AAG for State.

Mr. Ghulam Farid Birmani, Advocate for Complainant.

Date of hearing: 17.1.2019.

Order

The Petitioner has been booked in case F.I.R. No. 263/2018 dated 4.7.2018 registered at Police Station, F.I.A., C.C. Circle, Multan District Multan, for offences under Sections 17 & 22 of the Emigration Ordinance, 1979. Through this application he seeks post-arrest bail in the said case.

2.       Briefly, the allegation against the Petitioner is that in the October 2016 he received a sum of Rs. 700,000/- from the Complainant in two installments to arrange employment visas for him and his brother Khurram Shehzad for Dubai. However, neither he provided them the promised visas nor returned their money.

3.       I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. At the very outset, it is observed that there is an inordinate delay in lodging the FIR. The alleged occurrence took place in the year 2016 while the matter was reported to the FIA on 2.11.2017. The Complainant has not furnished any explanation for this delay. Further, he has not mentioned the specific time and date when he made the alleged payment to the Petitioner. All these facts put together call for further inquiry within the meaning of Section 497(2), Cr.P.C. to determine the Petitioner’s guilt.

4.       The Petitioner is a previous non-convict and is behind the bars since 12-10-2018. He has joined the investigation and is not required by the police for any further probe. His trial is not likely to be concluded in the near future. No useful purpose would be served in keeping him in jail for an indefinite period.

5.       For what has been discussed above, this application is accepted. The Petitioner is admitted to post-arrest bail subject to his furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs. 200,000/- (Rupees two hundred thousand) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.

(I.A.K.)           Bail accepted