Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: MUHAMMAD JAMEEL VS Respondent: THE STATEHonorable Justice Ijaz Ahmad ChaudhryZafar Iqbal Chohan,Sheikh Javed Sarfraz
2004 M L D 355
2004 M L D 355
[Lahore]
Before Ijaz Ahmad Chaudhry, J
MUHAMMAD JAMEEL‑‑‑Petitioner
Versus
THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent
Criminal Miscellaneous No.4511‑B of 2002, decided on 1st August, 2002.
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑‑
‑‑‑‑‑S.497‑‑‑Immigration Ordinance (XVIII of 1979), Ss. 17, 18 & 22‑‑ Bail, grant of‑‑‑Name of‑ accused was not mentioned in the original statement made by deportees though the names of other accused who had sent them abroad had been mentioned‑‑‑Case of accused was at par with the case of co‑accused who had been granted bail‑‑Accused, in circumstances, was also entitled to same treatment which had been given to said co‑accused.
Zafar Iqbal Chohan for Petitioner.
Sheikh Javed Sarfraz, Standing Counsel.
Date of hearing: 1st August, 2002.
ORDER
Through this application under section 497, Cr.P.C. the petitioner seeks bail after arrest in case F.I.R. No. 160, dated 15‑5‑2002 under sections 17, 18/22, Immigration Ordinance, 1979 registered at Police Station FIA, Passport Cell, Township, Lahore.
2. According to the F.I.R. recorded on the complaint of Nasir Zaman, S.‑I., 15 passengers were received at Lahore Airport through Flight No. SV 730 who were deported by Saudi Airline Staff from Jaddah as the visas on their passports were found to be forged. They disclosed that they got the passports from seven agents namely Allah Ditta, Ijaz Zafar, Atta‑ur‑Rehman Haji Javaid, Muhammad Ilyas, Aslam Ch. and Saleem Jehangir. Subsequently on the statements of Ahsan Elahi and Muhammad Ramzan deportees and the statement of the other persons they also named Muhammad Iqbal and Muhammad Jameel as accused and they were arrested.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that petitioner was not named in the F.I.R. and also in the 'Karwai' in which the names of other accused were mentioned who are guilty of the offence under sections 17/22 of Immigration Ordinance, 1979. It is further contended that the original statement, made by the department on the hands of which names of certain accused have been mentioned does not find mention the name of the petitioner. It is also submitted that the case of the petitioner is at par with the case of the co‑accused Muhammad Iqbal.
4. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel has opposed this bail application of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner had received Rs.1,00,000 from the deportees and they subsequently made their statements under section 161, Cr.P.C. in this, regard. The petitioner is involved in a case falling within the prohibitory clause and is not entitled to grant of bail.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record carefully. In the original statement made by the deportees the name of the petitioner is not mentioned therein though the names of other accused who had sent the deportees abroad are found mentioned. In such circumstances, the case of the petitioner is at par with the case of Muhammad Iqbal who has been granted bail by this Court in Criminal Miscellaneous No.3917‑B of 2002 vide order dated 27th June, 2002. Petitioner is also entitled to the same treatment which has been given to the co‑accused. Hence, he is also admitted to bail subject to furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 (Rs. one lac only) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Special Judge Central, Lahore.
H.B.T./M‑2428/L Bail granted.