' JAMILA JAHANOOR ASLAM, J.---This is the second bail petition after arrest in case F.I.R. No,39, dated 17-1-2009, Police Station F.I.A Passport Circle Rawalpindi AHTC under section 4 of Exit Control List Ordinance, 1981.
2. According to the F.I.R., the petitioner was at Karachi Airport with a valid passport and ticket for flying to Montreal. The Immigration authorities at Karachi Airport off-loaded the Accused/petitioner and sent him to Rawalpindi because ostensibly his permanent address is of District Gujrat and also there are some cases pending against him in the District Courts of Rawalpindi. He had previously been arrested in F.I.R. No,32, dated 25-1-2007 registered under sections 18/22 E.O. 6-PA, at Police Station F.I.A. Rawalpindi. Apart from this petition, he has applied for bail in that particular case too and it was declined. Thereafter, he filed a petition under section 497, Cr.P.C. Before Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench through Criminal Miscellaneous No,644/B of 2008 and he was granted bail by the Honourable Court but his name was put on the ECL by his Lordship.
3. In this particular matter his bail has already been refused by Additional District Judge Rawalpindi, therefore, he has filed present bail petition before this Court.
4. The counsel for the petitioner pleads that the petitioner has falsely been involved in this case and he was going to visit his ailing mother in Montreal, from where he was to return in a few days; he is an old man and unwell with various diseases; that his health is deteriorating day-by-day. She further contends that the offence does not fall in the prohibitory clauses of section 497 as the punishment in this case is only five years. Also states that his passport is with the F.I.A and he is no more required for further investigation.
5. Contrary to the above, Muhammad Afzal Khan Inspector and Mirza Waqar Rauf Baig Advocate, contend, that the petitioner is involved in other cases and their stance has been substantiated by the record placed before me.
6. To this, the counsel for the petitioner insists that there is no nexus between this case and other cases against the petitioner.
7. I have heard the arguments from both sides and perused the record and I do not agree with the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner because both the cases are inter-related.
During the proceedings before the Courts at Rawalpindi, the petitioner had undertaken that he would return the money for which he had given various cheques after acknowledging his mistake, and just for this, and to ensure that he honoured the promises to return the money which was A due in the other cases he was put on the Exit Control List.
8. It is obvious that in order to evade the payment to the claimants in the other cases, the petitioner tried to escape from Pakistan via Karachi and his expected travel was towards Montreal, of where he is citizen. It was not an innocent trip. It was with mala fide intention and to evade payment and honour promises made by him before his Lordship. The contentions of the counsel for the petitioner, that his passport is with F.I.A also holds no water before me as Canadian nationals are allowed dual nationality and the passport with the F.I.A is the Canadian one and not the Pakistani passport. Neither has he offered to submit his Pakistani passport to the F.I.A.
9. The counsel for the petitioner has relied upon PLD 1999 Karachi 402; PLD 2003 Peshawar 102; 2006 YLR 2797 Lahore and PLD 2006 Karachi 193.
10. The present case of the petitioner is distinguished from the cases relied upon. I do concede that right of an individual to travel abroad is a fundamental right granted to him under Article 2(a), (iv), (ix), (xv) and (xxv) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan. However as held, in PLD 1999 Karachi 402 "the right of an individual is subservient to the rights of public". The petitioner has defrauded a number of people B of their money and now in spite of his commitment to the Court seems adamant to deprive them of their rights further. He has tried to get out of Pakistan in order to obstruct the path of justice and has attempted violation of an order of the High Court. His behavior can be deemed to be contumacious and does not entitle him to the benefit of bail.
' Bail concession is accordingly refused. .