Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: MUHAMMAD IQBAL BHATTI VS Respondent: StateHonorable Justice Mian Muhammad Najam-uz-ZamanWaqar Ahmed
2006 P Cr
2006 P Cr. L J 1783
[Lahore]
Before Mian Muhammad Najam-uz-Zaman, J
MUHAMMAD IQBAL BHATTI----Petitioner
Versus
THE STATE----Respondent
Criminal Miscellaneous No.3674/B of 2006, decided on 26th June, 2006.
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---
----S. 497(2)---Emigration Ordinance (XVIII of 1979), Ss.17 & 22---Bail, grant of---Further inquiry---F.I.R. showed allegation against accused was that he, along with other co-accused, had received money from complainant on the pretext of sending him abroad for employment, but data available on record was absolutely silent with regard to receiving of money by accused himself---Entire case was that said amount was received by co-accused and that amount was paid upon asking of accused---Question as to how far accused could vicariously be liable for commission of offence, was a one which called for further inquiry, entitling accused to concession of bail.
Waqar Ahmed for Petitioner.
Muhammad Hussain Chhachhar Standing Counsel.
Muhammad Javed Sultan, S.-I., F.I.A.
ORDER
MIAN MUHAMMAD NAJAM-UZ-ZAMAN, J.---Seeks post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.130 of 2006, dated 18-1-2006 for the offence under sections 17/22 of E.O., 1979 registered at Police Station F.I.A., Gujranwala.
2. The precise allegation against the petitioner as penned in the F.I.R. is that he along with other co-accused namely Aqeel Ahmed had received Rs.4,16,900 from the complainant Waseem Butt on the pretext of sending him abroad (Korea) for employment. Allegedly this commitment was never honoured nor the said amount has been returned.
Petitioner was arrested in' this case on 26-3-2006. Bail application of the petitioner was dismissed by Special Judge (Central), Lahore vide order, dated 22-4-2006, hence this petition.
3. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, I have observed that though in the F.I.R. allegation against the petitioner is that he along with other co-accused had received the said amount from complainant Waseem Butt on the pretext of sending him abroad for employment but the data available on the record is absolutely silent with regard to receiving of money by the petitioner himself and the entire case is that the said amount was received by the co-accused of the petitioner namely Aqeel Ahmed and that the amount was paid upon the asking of the petitioner. In this view of the matter how far the petitioner could vicariously be liable for the commission of offence is a question' which calls for further inquiry entitling him to the concession of bail. Accordingly this petition is allowed and petitioner is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds amounting to Rs.1,00,000 (Rupees one lac only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of D.R. (Judicial) of this Court.
H.B.T./374/L Bail granted.