' TARIQ SHAMIM, J.---Through this petition, the petitioner seeks post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No,487 of 2007 dated 11-9-2007 for offences under section 18 of the Emigration Ordinance, 1979, and sections 411 and 109, P.P.C. Registered at Police Station F.I.A. Passport Cell, Lahore.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that during the course of investigation of case F.I.R. No,75 of 2007, dated 9-2-2007 the petitioner was arrested on 24-4-2007 and during his search, from the bag of his laptop certain articles were recovered including Passport No,GH-1792771 dated 29-8- 2006 of one Gulzar Ali bearing U.K. Visa sticker No,UK-870968-F dated 29-8-2007 expired Passport No, J-925372 dated 20-3-2001 Passport No,KC-942863 dated 23-12-2003 of Saleem Khan, bearing visa sticker No,UK-870852 dated 16-9-1994 and the Passport of the petitioner bearing U.K. Visa No,UK-482885-B dated 26-10-2004. The said Passports were sent to the British High Commission, Islamabad for verification of visas on 1-8-2007 and the British High Commission vide letter dated 3- 8-2007 intimated that ,the visa stickers affixed on the Passports of Gulzar Ali as well as Saleem Khan were stolen. The F.I.R. Further reveals that both the visa stickers belonged to batch of 900 which were stolen blank en route to the British Embassy, Moscow in 2006 which previously featured in the operation of the FIA knows as Operation Skybox. Further two visas encountered on Islamabad Airport were found to be remarkably similar with the one allegedly recovered from the petitioner.
Consequently, the aforesaid F.I.R. Was registered.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that although the petitioner was arrested on 24- 4-2007 and the passports in question had been taken into possession by the Federal Investigating Agency, however, there is no plausible explanation as to why the Passports/visas were sent for verification to the British High Commission on 1-8-2007; that the report received from the British High Commission revealed that the disputed visa stickers were issued in Dubai and not in Pakistan; that 900 blank visas stickers were stolen en route from U.K. To the British Embassy in Moscow in April, 2006, however, there is no evidence on the record to suggest that the petitioner was responsible for the theft or that he had committed any forgery; that in operation Skyfox, the FIA had taken the said stickers into its possession in 2006 and therefore, the same could not have been affixed by the petitioner unless he was in league with FIA personnel who were in charge of the custody of the said visa stickers, incidentally, there is no evidence to that effect on the record; that, in fact, visa stickers were . Fabricated and were affixed on the Passports after the same had allegedly been recovered from the petitioner; that visa sticker bearing No,UK-870852 dated 16-9- 1994 affixed on the Passport of Saleem Khan, if it belonged to the batch stolen in 2006, could not have been issued in 1994; that the recovery memo. Had been signed by the accused which reflects that the FIA in order to strengthen its case coerced the petitioner to sign the memo. Which, even otherwise, was not a legal requirement; that the petitioner had been implicated in the case at the instance of Azhar Mehmood, Deputy Director FIA, against whom the petitioner had filed a complaint with the Director General FIA in November, 2007; that the. Provisions of section 18 of the Emigration Ordinance, .1979 are not attracted to the facts of the case and section 22 is inapplicable as there is no independent evidence to show that the petitioner had received any money for providing employment abroad and that the petitioner is behind the bars for the last about nine months, who is not required for any further investigation, therefore, he is entitled to be released on bail.
4. The learned Standing counsel for the Federation of Pakistan contends that there is ample incriminating material available on the record to show that the petitioner is involved in the crime; that a number of criminal cases had been registered against the petitioner in the past for similar offences; that only seven stickers were recovered by the FIA in operation Skyfox as against 900 stolen and that the provisions of sections 18 as well as 22 of the Ordinance are fully attracted to the case, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to the concession of post-arrest bail.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record.
6. The learned Law Officer representing the Federation of Pakistan has not been able to provide any plausible explanation as to why the Passports bearing disputed visa stickers were sent to the British High Commission for verification on 1-8-2007 i,e, after more than three months of the recovery.
Admittedly, the Passports in question remained in the custody of the FIA during the said period.
There is no evidence on the record to even remotely suggest that the petitioner had played any part or role in the theft of the visa stickers stolen en route from U.K. To the British Embassy in Moscow. Similarly, there is no evidence on the record to suggest that the petitioner had forged or fabricated the said visa stickers. No instrument or article which can be used for the purpose of forgery was recovered from the petitioner. Merely being in possession of documents purportedly forged is no offence unless it can be shown that the same had been used as genuine. There is no evidence on the record to show that the Passports with forged or stolen visa stickers had been used.
7. The F.I.A. In 2006 as a result of operation Skyfox had recovered a number of blank visa stickers belonging to the stolen batch and according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, about 100 stickers were taken into possession by the F.I.A. Whereas in the Court it has been admitted by the Investigating Officer that seven such stickers were taken into possession by F.I.A.. As to how the petitioner obtained the said stickers and what circumstances the said stickers were affixed on the Passports of Gulzar and Saleem Khan is a complete mystery.
8. The F.I.R. Reveals that the petitioner was arrested on 24-4-2007 during the course of investigation of case F.I.R. No,75 of 2007 dated 9-2-2007. It is beyond imagination that while the petitioner was participating in the investigation proceedings with the F.I.A. Authorities he was carrying the Passports of the said Gulzar Ali and Saleem Khan affixed with fake and stolen visa stickers. From the foregoing discussion, it is evident that the investigation conducted by the F.I.A. So far is lacking in many respects and prima facie there is not enough incriminating material to directly or indirectly connect the petitioner with the commission of theft of the said stickers, forgery or fabrication thereof. However, I am not impressed with the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has been implicated in the case on account of a complaint filed by him against Azhar Mehmood, Deputy Director, F.I.A. As the petitioner was arrested on 24-4-2007 whereas the complaint in question was lodged in November, 2007 which is quite sometime after his arrest.
9. A perusal of the F.I.R. As well as the material collected by the FIA reveals that prima facie the provisions of section 18 of the Ordinance are not attracted to the case of the petitioner. For easy reference section 18 is reproduced hereunder:--- "18. Fraudulently inducing to emigrate.--Whoever, (a) Forges any document required for, or relating to, the emigration of any person, or has in his possession or under his control any instrument or article which may be used for the purpose of such forgery, or (b) By means of intoxication, coercion fraud or willful misrepresentation, causes or induces or attempts to cause or induce, any person to emigrate, or enters into any agreement to emigrate or leaves any place with a view to emigrating, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to fourteen years, or with fine, or with both."
10. Insofar as the applicability of section 22 of the Emigration Ordinance, 1979 is concerned, suffice it to say that the evidence available on the record is scant and not sufficient to connect the petitioner with the commission of the said offence. The learned Law Officer has not been able to convince the Court that apart from the said two Passports, there is any other incriminating material available on the record to prima facie connect the petitioner with the crime. The learned Law Officer has not denied the fact that in almost all the cases registered against the petitioner in the past, he has been allowed bail.
11. From the above discussion, it is manifest that the case of the petitioner is one of further inquiry calling for further probe into his guilt. Resultantly, this petition is allowed and the petitioner is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing bail bond in sum of Rs,5,00,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.