Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: JEHANGIR AHMAD VS Respondent: THE STATE
1988 M L D 1805
1988 M L D 1805
[Lahore]
Before Ghulam Mujaddid Mirza, Actg, C J
JEHANGIR AHMAD‑‑Petitioner
Versus
THE STATE‑‑Respondent
Criminal Miscellaneous No.4467/B of 1987, decided on 3rd February, 1988.
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑---
‑‑S.497‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 419/420/468/471‑‑Emigration Ordinance (XVIII of 1979), Ss. 17, 22 & 24(6)‑‑Passports Act (XX of 1974), S.6‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑Procedure laid down in S.24(6) of Emigration Ordinance, was not complied with‑‑Accused, held,‑entitled to concession of bail.
Moinuddin v. The State 1986 P Cr. L J 1158 ref.
Abdul Qayyum Bhatti for Petitioner.
Javed Shaukat Malik for the State.
ORDER
Jehangir Ahmad son of Taj Din
Aram, resident of House No. 11, Gali No. 149, Mohallah Rajpura, Baghbanpura, Lahore is involved in a case registered under section 17/22 of the Emigration Ordinance 1979, . and sections 419/420/468/471, P.P.C. read with section 6 of Passports Act, vide F.I.R. No. 130/1987 dated 27‑11‑1987, at Police Station RIA. Passport Cell, Lahore.
He applied for bail after arrest to the Special Judge (Central), Lahore. His application was turned down on 15‑12‑1987.
He has now moved this Court. The allegation against him is that on 27‑11‑1987 when a raid was conducted, some forged passports, medical certificates and school leaving certificates were recovered from his shop.
It is further alleged that he used to obtain Rs. 5,000 per passport on the pretext of sending the persons abroad for employment.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of lire petitioner did not touch the merits or the case. He contended that the procedure laid down in section 24(6) Emigration Ordinance has not been complied with. He relied on the decision Moinuddin v. The State 1986 P Cr. L J 1158 and argued that the arrest tithe petitioner is ab initio void. He, as such, is entitled to the concession of bail.
On 16‑1‑1988, I directed the Deputy Registrar(J) to inform the Director F.I.A. to depute Investigating Officer to appear alongwith the entire record pertaining to this case.
State counsel was also directed to come prepared to meet the points raised by the counsel for the petitioner.
S.I. from F.IA. has turned up. Investigating Officer never appeared nor record was produced.
I called upon the learned State counsel. He was unable to meet the contention raised by the counsel for the petitioner. I am, therefore, of the view that the petitioner has a case for bail.
As already observed although the counsel did not argue about the merits of the case, nevertheless, he submitted while concluding his arguments that even on merits the petitioner has a case for bail because one of the persons alleged to have parted with the money has given affidavit that he did not give any money to "the petitioner.
For the foregoing reasons, I admit the petitioner to bail in the, sum of Rs. 30,000 (Rupees thirty thousand) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court,
S.G.D./J‑22/L Bail allowed.