Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: MAHBOOB ALAM VS Respondent: THE STATE
1988 M L D 565
1988 M L D 565
[Lahore]
Before Sardar Muhammad Dogar, J
MAHBOOB ALAM‑‑Petitioner
versus
THE STATE‑‑Respondent
Criminal Miscellaneous No. 664/B of 1988, decided on 12th March, 1988.
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑
‑‑‑S. 497‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 420/468/471‑‑Emigration Ordinance (XVIII of 1979), Ss. 17, 18 & 22‑‑Passports Act (XX of 1974), S. 6‑‑Bail‑ Contention on behalf of accused that no incriminating part was assigned to him in first information report not rebutted by counsel for State‑‑Case against accused one of further inquiry‑‑Bail granted.
Khalid Javed Saleemi for Petitioner.
Mian Bashir Ahmad for the State.
ORDER
Petitioner seeks bail in the case registered at Police Station F.IA. Passport Cell, Lahore, under Sections 420, 468, 471, P.P.C., Section 6 of the Passport Act, read with Section 17/18/22 of the Emigration Ordinance.
2. According to F.I.R. the complainant and the petitioner on being told by Javed Ahmad and Major Muhammad Latif that they have a demand of 400 persons for employment in Al‑Riaz, requested them that they are interested in the employment of some of their relatives and co‑villagers, and that they may examine their passports, but the payment will be made later, whereupon both of them demanded Rs. 15,000 per head and told that it may make payment when the visas are obtained. As a result of this agreement, seven passports were handed over by the petitioner and the complainant to them. They again met Major Muhammad Latif etc. after some days, and they were told that the things were going on in the right direction. Thereafter, the complainant and the petitioner collected Rs. 99,900 and deposited the same at Travel King Service, on the Railway Station and obtained receipt, Javed and Mian Basher after receiving money, gave to the complainant four passports with visas. The complainant and the petitioner went to Karachi at the Embassy, wherefrom they came to know that the visas were forged. The complainant then met them alongwith the petitioner; Muhammad Ilyas and Aurangzeb, for the return of money but they refused.
3. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that no incriminating part stands assigned to the petitioner in the F.I.R., is not rebutted by learned counsel for the State. Although it is mentioned in the order of learned A Special Judge (Central), Lahore that the petitioner received money from four persons yet that is the prosecution case that the complainant and the petitioner had collected some money from their relatives and had handed over the same to the accused persons.
4. The circumstances as they appear now, require further enquiry. This petition is, therefore, allowed and the petitioner is directed to be released on bail, provided he furnishes bail bonds in the sum of Rs. twenty thousand with two sureties' each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Assistant Commissioner, Sadar, Lahore.
5. The State shall, however, be at liberty to move for cancellation of bail if they are able to collect any incriminating material against the petitioner.
M.Y.H./M‑619/L
Bail granted.