1. ' BIN YAMIN, J.--- This order will dispose of bail application made on behalf of the applicant/accused Muhammad Anwar Khan son of Roohullah, who is detained in case F.I.R. No,1046 of 2007, registered under section 22(b) of Emigration Ordinance, 1979 at Police Station F.I.A. AHT Circle, Karachi.
2. ' Brief facts of the case are that on 9-10-2007 this case against applicant/accused was registered on the complaint of one Tariq Mahmood son of Karamat Hussain. That consequent upon Enquiry No,550 of 2006 initiated on a written complaint of complainant Tariq Mahmood whose particulars are mentioned in F.I.R, it was established that applicant/accused in the month of August, 2005 on the pretext of sending real brother of the complainant, namely Tazarab Hussain son of Karamat Hussain, nephew Imran Hussain son of Shafaqat Hussain and cousin Muhammad Jehangir, for employment purpose to Greece demanded and received Rs,16,00,000 along with their passports. It is further alleged that in October, 2005, applicant/accused sent, the abovenamed persons to Egypt for their onward travelling to Greece. However, the above named three persons on their reaching Egypt were detained by Immigration Authorities and deported back to Pakistan. That as applicant/accused was not an authorized Overseas Employment Promoter, therefore, his act of receiving amount from the above named three persons on the pretext of sending them for employment to Greece falls under section 22(b) of Emigration Ordinance, 1979.
3. ' After registration of the F.I.R. Application/accused was taken into custody and since that time he is detained in jail custody. Earlier, bail application made on behalf of applicant accused was rejected by the learned Special Judge, (Central-I), Karachi under his order, dated 11-3-2008, hence this bail application.
4. ' Heard advocate for applicant/accused, Mr. Rizwan Ahmed Siddiqui, learned D.A.-G. And Mr. Muhammad Akber Khan, Advocate for complainant.
5. ' Learned counsel for applicant/accused submitted that he is falsely implicated in this case. That no material evidence has been collected against the applicant/accused during the investigation to show that applicant/accused has committed the alleged offence. That there is also delay in lodging of the F.I.R. For which, no proper explanation is available. Furthermore, at the time of arrest of applicant/accused, no incriminating document was recovered from his possession. That no document has been produced by the complainant to establish that he has paid the alleged amount of Rs,16,00,000 to the applicant/accused. That applicant/accused is behind the bar since long and is no more required by the prosecution for further investigation, therefore, he may be granted bail at this stage.
6. ' Learned D.A.-G. Has opposed this application and submitted that so far as the delay in lodging the F.I.R. Is concerned, that has properly been explained. That as per procedure of investigation of the F.I.A., first inquiry is conducted and if a prima facie case is made out, then F.I.R. Is lodged. That this point was earlier also taken before the trial Court but was rejected for the afore-noted reasons.
7. That so far as the non-recovery of incriminating document from the possession of the applicant/accused is concerned, he submitted that it is not the case of the complainant that the applicant/accused had taken the documents from his brother and others and thereafter he failed to send them to the Greece. On the contrary his case is that his brother, nephew and other person were sent to Egypt for their onward travelling to Greece, but they were intercepted by the Immigration Authorities at Egypt and deported back to Pakistan. That in these circumstances, it cannot be supposed that the applicant/ accused should have kept any document belonging to the said persons, who are sent to Egypt, in his possession, therefore, even this contention of the learned counsel for applicant/accused has no force.
8. ' The learned Deputy Attorney-General while continuing his arguments submitted that the persons who are indulging in the activities of illegally sending simple persons to foreign countries, they do not issue any receipt for the amount received by them, but on the contrary they are carrying on this nefarious business clandestinely. That, at this stage, non-production of the document to show that the applicant/accused had received money from the complainant and his other relatives is immaterial. That all the witnesses examined by the Investigation Agency have supported the case of the prosecution. That such type of the offences in the society have become common, therefore, to discourage the persons having such inclination, this application may be rejected.
9. I have considered the contentions raised at Bar and also perused the case papers. Nothing is available on the record to show that complainant and his witnesses have any reason to falsely implicate the applicant/accused, on the contrary the P.Ws. Of this case were sent to Egypt from where they were taken into custody and thereafter they were sent back to Pakistan, thus, they have suffered ordeal of illegal travelling and subsequent detention in this case. The offences of this nature have become common and the simple people of the country are robbed of their hard earning on the pretext of sending them to foreign countries for employment. This nefarious business on the part of selfish people, not only exposes td the simple citizen of this country to various hazards, but is also bringing bad name to the country in the comity of Nations. The punishment provided for the alleged offence is upto 14 years or fine or both. The case is at preliminary stage and it is well-settled law that at the bail stage, deeper appreciation of the evidence of the prosecution cannot be undertaken. In the instant case, there is allegation that applicant/accused has taken huge amount of Rs,16,00,000 from the P.Ws. On the pretext of sending them to foreign country. The nature of the offence in this case is quite serious and furthermore, such cases are increasing day by day in the society. Therefore, I am of the opinion to discourage the persons having such tendency, the Court should take strict view and should not normally extend the facility of bail to the persons involved in such type of the offences.
10. ' In view of the afore-noted discussions, I do not find any merits in this bail application, which is hereby rejected. However, the learned trial Court is directed to proceed and dispose of the case of the applicant/accused without un-necessary delay.