Azizur Rehman vs State

2012 P Cr. L J 1934 [Peshawar]

Before Waqar Ahmad Seth, J

AZIZUR REHMAN---Petitioner Versus THE STATE---Respondent

Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application 241-P of 2012, decided on 16th March, 2012.

Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---

----S. 497(2)--- Emigration Ordinance (XVIII of 1979), Ss. 18-B & 22-B---Fraudulently inducing to emigration---Receiving money for providing foreign employment---Bail, grant of--- Further inquiry---Accused was alleged to have extorted money from complainants on the pretext to provide them visa and work permit for abroad---Accused, in that respect executed agreement deeds and received Bank cheques for certain amount, but it did not show the factum of sending the said persons abroad or to provide work permit to them---Agreement deeds and bank cheques were available on record, but in order to prove the same, it would require recording of evidence, which was not the job of High Court to enter upon---Available material reflected that it was a case of civil liability, which could be resolved after recording evidence---Even otherwise offences under Ss.18-B & 22-B of the Emigration Ordinance, 1979 provided alternate punishment of fine; same did not fall within the prohibitory limb of S.497, Cr.P.C. which made the case of accused as of further inquiry.

Arshad Hussain for Petitioner.

Iqbal Muhammad, D.A.-G. for the State.

Date of hearing: 16th March, 2012.

JUDGMENT

WAQAR AHMAD SETH, J.---Petitioner Aziz-ur-Rehman seeks his release on bail in case F.I.R. No.31 dated 8-2-2012 registered under sections 18-B, 22-B, E.O. 1979, 6 Passport Act read with P.C. Act, by Police Station, FIA/AHTC, Peshawar.

2.Briefly, as per prosecution version, the allegation against the petitioner is that he had deceitfully received an amount of Rs.1,35,500 and Rs.11,00,000 from Musa Khan and Naqibullah affectees on the pretext to provide them visa of employment and work permit for Oman and Canada, respectively and even did not return them the money despite the execution of agreement deeds in their favour.

3.Learned counsel for petitioner contended that the petitioner is innocent and falsely implicated in the instant case as according to him the offence charged is not made out because there is no allegation that the petitioner received the alleged amount for sending anybody abroad for employment albeit bank cheques and agreement deeds have been executed in favour of Musa Khan and Naqibullah affectees, which did not reveal the said factum. In the first report, names of the witnesses have not been mentioned and that on the available record there are no reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioner has committed the offence for which he has been charged but there are grounds for further inquiry into the guilt of the petitioner.

4.On the other hand, learned Deputy Attorney-General while rebutting the arguments from other side contended that the petitioner has allegedly received huge amount from Musa Khan and Naqibullah affectees on the pretext to provide them visa and work permit for Oman and Canada and in this regard executed agreement deeds with them, therefore, at the moment the petitioner is well connected with the crime alleged against him.

Arguments heard. Record perused.

5.It is alleged against the petitioner that he had extorted certain amount of money from Musa Khan and Naqibullah on the pretext to provide them visa and work permit for Oman and Canada. In this respect, the petitioner executed agreement deeds and received bank cheques for certain amount but it did not show the factum of sending the said persons to abroad or to provide

work permit to one of them. The agreement deeds and bank cheques are available on record but in order to prove the same, it will require recording of evidence, which is not the job of this court to enter upon. The available material reflects that it is a case of civil liability, which can be resolved after recording evidence. Even otherwise, the offences under sections 18 and 22 of the Emigration Ordinance provide alternate punishment of fine, therefore, the same do not fall within the prohibitory limb of section 497, Cr.P.C., which makes the case of petitioner as of further inquiry.

This petition was allowed vide short order of even date and above reasons for the same.

HBT/286/P Bail granted.