Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: NASIR MEHMOOD VS Respondent: StateHonorable Justice Mian Muhammad Najam-uz-ZamanZafar Iqbal Chohan,Ch. Akhtar Ali Gorya
2005 Y L R 2502
2005 Y L R 2502
[Lahore]
Before Mian Muhammad Najam-uz-Zaman, J
NASIR MEHMOOD---Petitioner
Versus
THE STATE---Respondent
Criminal Miscellaneous No.6602-B of 2004, decided on 8th November, 2004.
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)------
--S.497(2)-Emigration Ordinance (XVIII of 1979), Ss.17 & 22---Bail, grant of--Further inquiry---Entire case of prosecution against accused was that he had been instructing on telephone to the complainant party from abroad to make payment of disputed amount to his co-accused and in compliance thereof the amount was paid---No direct evidence was available against accused to show that he had received amount from complainant party---Complainant had submitted that complainant party was also in possession of audio cassettes showing involvement of accused for commission of offence---How far that type of evidence would be sufficient to connect accused for the commission of offence was yet to be determined by Trial Court after recording of evidence of both sides---Prima facie said circumstances, were sufficient to bring case of accused within the fold of further enquiry entitling him to concession of bail---Accused was admitted to bail, in circumstances.
Zafar Iqbal Chohan for Petitioner.
Ch. Akhtar Ali Gorya, for the Complainant.
Sheikh Javed Sarfraz, Standing Counsel with Muhammad Ishfaque, S.-I.
ORDER
Seeks post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.25 of 2004 dated 27-7-2004 for the offences under sections 17/22 of E.O., 1979 registered at Police Station, F.I.A., P.C. Gujranwala.
2. In brief the allegation against the petitioner is that he along with other co-accused in furtherance of their common intention had deceitfully received Rs.2,50,000 from the complainant party in order to make arrangement for employment/send Atta-ur-Rehman and Ijaz Ahmed abroad. Allegedly this commitment was never honoured not the disputed amount has been returned by the petitioner or his co-accused.
3. During the investigation the petitioner was arrested in this case on 6-8-2004. Bail application of the petitioner was dismissed by Special Judge (Central), Lahore vide order dated 13-9-2004, hence this petition.
4. Heard. File perused.
5. The entire case of the prosecution against the petitioner is that from Malaysia he had been instructing on telephone to the, complainant party to make payment (disputed) amount to his-co-accused and in compliance the amount was paid. Admittedly there is no direct evidence against the petitioner to show that he had received the amount from the complainant party. Learned counsel for the complainant submits that complainant party is also in possession of an audio-cassette showing the involvement of the petitioner for the commission of this offence. How far this type of evidence would be sufficient to connect the petitioner with the commission of offence is yet to be determined by the trial Court after recording of evidence of both the sides. Prima facie, the said circumstances are sufficient to bring the case of the petitioner within the fold of 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) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
H.B.T./N-47/L???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Bail granted.