' M. BILAL KHAN, J.---Muhammad Arif son of Muhammad Khan seeks post-arrest bail in case F.I.R.
No, C/87/2005, dated 24-6-2005, registered at Police Station FIA District Faisalabad, for offences under sections 17/22 of Emigration Ordinance, 1979.
2. The allegation against the petitioner as contained in the F.I.R.Registered at the instance of the complainant was that the petitioner and his son Javaid Iqbal in the year, 1998 in the garb of Overseas Employment Promoters, deceitfully deprived Saee Muhammad son of Muhammad Sarwar, and Muhammad Akhtar, son of Muhammad Ali, of Rs,16 lacs on the pretext of providing employment in America. According to the F.I.R. The amount was given in the presence of Umer Hayat and Rafaqat Ali, and that neither the intending emigrants had been sent abroad nor the amount obtained from them had been returned. On receipt of an application from the complainant 'an inquiry was conducted by FIA whereafter, the instant case had been registered against the petitioner and his son Javaid Iqbal.
3. The petitioner was arrested in June, 2005, and is in custody ever since. His application for post- arrest bail had been turned down by the learned Special Judge (Central) Faisalabad, on 26-8- 2005. Hence the instant petition.
4. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is an unexplained delay of seven years in lodging the F.I.R.; that F.I.R. Is mala fide and had been lodged at the instance of his ex-wife Mst. Maqsooda Bibi, who had been divorced by the petitioner in the year, 2001; that the F.I.R.
Is .Aimed at preventing the petitioner from disposing of his property at Lahore as Mst. Maqsooda Bibi is apprehending that the petitioner would transfer the property to his new wife with whom he got married in the year, 2005; that a civil suit is pending against the petitioner having been filed by the witnesses in the instant F.I.R.
5. On the other hand the learned Standing Counsel for Government of Pakistan submitted that there is serious allegation against the petitioner of having deprived unsuspecting citizens of a huge amount of Rs,16, lacs. He argued that the civil suit pending at Jhang had been filed on account of some different transaction and has got no nexus with the F.I.R. In hand; that there is substantial incriminatory material available against the petitioner and the offences charged with attract the prohibitory clause of section 497(1), Cr.P.C.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record.
7. There is nothing available on the record to suggest that the allegedly defrauded persons namely Saee Muhammad son of Muhammad Sarwar and Muhammad Akhtar son of Muhammad Ali bear any animosity or towards the petitioner to falsely implicate him in a serious case of this nature. At this juncture apparently there is ample incriminatory material available against the petitioner prima facie connecting him with the alleged offence. He is also involved in another case of similar nature. The offences charged with attract the mischief of the prohibition as contemplated in subsection (1) of section 497, Cr.P.C. I find no merit in this petition, which is accordingly dismissed.