' Having been involved in a case registered vide F.I.R. No.92 dated 9-7-2003 under sections 18-B and 22-B of the EmigrationOrdinance, 1979, at Police Station F.I.A. Peshawar, the accused-petitioner applied for his release on bail in the Court of Special Judge (Central) Anti-Corruption and Immigration N.-W.F.P. Peshawar but the same was dismissed vide order dated 2-8-2003. Now he has moved this Court for his release on bail.
2. Muhammad Saddiq alongwith 67 others submitted a written complaint to the F.I.A. Authorities that Taj Muhammad, Ibrar Hussain and Zafa Iqbal had received Rs.4,02,000 at the rate of Rs.6,000 from each person fraudulently with the promise to send them to Saudi Arabia for employment and they also handedover their passports to the said agents but neither they sent them abroad nor they were prepared to return the received amount. On the said application, an inquiry was conducted by the F.I.A. Officials and pursuant to finalization of said inquiry, the instant case under the above mentioned sections of law was registered against them.
3. Mr. Muhammad Asif, Advocate, for the accused-petitioner, argued that the accused-petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the case due to his brother, namely, Ibrar Hussain. He was arrested on 17-7-2003 but neither recovery of any passport had been effected from him nor did he make any confession. The investigation of the case is complete and he is no more required in the investigation.
4. It was also argued that the sections of law with which the accused-petitioner has been charged are punishable with 14 years or fine or with both. In case where the fine could also be imposed as a punishment, the punishment would not fall under the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. And in such-like cases grant of bail is a Rule while refusal is an exception.
5. On the other hand, Mr. Salahuddin Khan, learned Deputy Attorney-General, argued that all the 67 applicants' statements were recorded by the Investigating Officer and all of them have charged the accused-petitioner. Co-accused Ibrar Hussain and Taj Muhammad are still at large. The proceedings under section 87, Cr.P.C. Have been completed against them and their perpetual warrants of arrest have already been issued.
6. It was also argued that poor people have been deprived of their money by the accused- petitioner and his co-accused. The accused-petitioner committed the crime which has affected the entire society, hence he is not entitled for grant of bail.
7. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.
8. In this case accused-petitioner alongwith absconding co-accused has been charged for fraudulently inducing 67 persons to emigrate to Saudi Arabia and thereby fraudulently received Rs.6,000 from each person. The accused-petitioner and his co-accused were neither Overseas Employment .Promoters nor authorised agents of the Overseas Employment Promoters but they misrepresented themselves to be so. They have not only deprived large number of people of their passports which were secured by hectic efforts but the poor persons were deprived of Rs.6,000 each for "protector" and medical charges. It is worth-mentioning that fee of 'protector' is deposited in the 'Government Treasury and the Government of Saudi Arabia have authorised certain doctors for medical check-up of intending emigrants. Fee of the doctor has also been fixed by the Saudi Government. Neither the accused-petitioner nor his co-accused were lawfully authorised to receive any amount for 'protector' or for the doctor. A sum of Rs.6,000 was fraudulently taken by the accused-petitioner and his two absconding co-accused.
9. It is a matter of common knowledge that gangs of recognized people while misrepresenting them to be Overseas Employment Promoters or their Agents have been looting hard-earned money of the innocent people with firm promise to get them visas for their emigration to various countries. Such people are not only playing with the lives and valuable earnings of the innocents but they are also earning bad name for their country, therefore, deserve no leniency and need to dealt with iron hands.
10. There is a strong prima facie case involving the accused-petitioner in the commission of offence because all the 67 persons in their statements recorded under section 161, Cr.P.C. Have charged him.
11. The argument of the learned counsel for the accused-petitioner that two alternate punishments are provided under sections 18-B and 22-B of the Emigration Ordinance, 1979, hence the case does not fall under the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. Has no force at all. A similar question came up for hearing in Muhammad Shafi Mansoori v. The State (2001 PCr.LJ 588) in which it was held: "The plain reading of subsection (1) of section 497, Cr.P.C. Would show that emphasis is placed upon the maximum punishment which could be awarded for a particular offence and not the minimum punishment of fine that may be awarded. While describing the punishment of imprisonment in the subsection no mention is made of fine at all. If we accept the argument that where offence is punishable with imprisonment or fine, the Court can award only fine, therefore, the offence would not be covered by subsection (1) of section 497, Cr.P.C., even when maximum punishment is 10 years or more, this argument would be equally applicable to cases which are punishable with 10 years' imprisonment and fine. t ven in such cases, the Court can award imprisonment till rising of Court and fine. Therefore, while deciding as to whether the offence is covered by subsection (1) of section 497, Cr.P.C. Or not, the only points to be cOnsidered by the Court are whether offence is non-bailable and whether maximum punishment that could be awarded is imprisonment or 10 years or more. In the instant case imprisonment, which could be awarded is .14 years and, therefore, this 'offence would falls within the prohibitionimposed by subsection (1) of section 497, Cr.P.C."
Keeping in view the incriminating material in the shape of statements of .67 persons recorded under section 161, Cr.P.C. And the law quoted above, I am not inclined to release the accused- petitioner on bail. Resultantly, the bail application is dismissed.