Pakistan Case Lawโ† Search
2005 YLR 672

ANAYAT MASIH and others vs THE STATE

Citation2005 YLR 672
CourtLahore High Court
Case No.Crl. Miscellaneous No,3476-B of 2004
Date2004-07-05
Judge(s)Mian Muhammad Najum-uz-Zaman
ResultBail application dismissed

ORDER

' Petitioners seek pre-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No, 82 of 2004, dated 22-2-2004 registered under sections 17/22 of Emigration Ordinance, 1979 at Police Station F.I.A., P.C. Lahore.

2. In brief the allegation against the petitioners is that they had deceitfully received Rs,5,00,000 from the complainant Capt. Farrukh Afzal on the pretext of sending his son Kamran and his relative Sohail abroad for employment. Allegedly, the said commitment was not honoured nor the amount has been returned to the complainant.

3. Bail is sought on the grounds that petitioners have been falsely involved in this case; they never received any money from the complainant as alleged in the F.I.R.; there is no witness of the payment of disputed amount to the petitioners and it is a case of no evidence; allegedly, the occurrence took place in the year 1999 but the F.I.R. Was registered in the year 2004 i.e, after the delay of six years and that this delay in lodging the F.I.R. Is sufficient to bring the case of the petitioners within the fold of further inquiry entitling them to the concession of bail. Conversely, learned ' counsel for the State as well as complainant vehemently opposed the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners.

3. Heard. File perused.

4. As far the delay in lodging the F.I.R. Is concerned, record of this case clearly indicates that complainant had been making efforts to get the money back though different sources and in the circumstances this delay is of no significance. Record of this case also reveals that the disputed amount was paid to the petitioners in the house of complainant in the presence of Shahid, Sajeel and Kamran. The said witnesses while making statements under section 161, Cr.P.C. Have specifically stated in this regard. The petitioners are also very much required for the recovery of case property. Similarly, the learned counsel has failed to show any mala fide on the part of prosecution for the false involvement of the petitioners in this case. In the light of data available on the record, I see no force in this petition the same stands dismissed.

For educational and research use only โ€” not legal advice. Verify against the official report before relying on it. See our Disclaimer.
DisclaimerยทPrivacyยทTermsยทSearch