1. GHULAM MUSTAFA MENGAL, J.---Applicant Syed Nadir Shah son of Syed Ewiz Shah, who is one of the nominated accused in Crime No,126 of 2011 dated 11-4-2011 for commission of offence punishable under section 22(b) Emigration Ordinance, 1979 has moved this bail application under section 497, Cr.P.C.
2. ' On the complaint of two persons namely Syed Abbas son of Syed Raza and Altaf Hussain son of Muhammad Akbar F.I.R was registered against the applicant and his three sons alleging therein that the applicant and his sons are involved in human smuggling and taking people to Australia on the pretext of providing jobs in Australia and for this purpose the accused persons demanded 5000 US$ from the complainants and payments were made to the accused persons but they failed to take them to Australia and from time to time they approached the accused persons and demanded their aforesaid amount but they could not return the amount which were paid to him.
3. During inquiry complainant also produced a stamp paper and receipt in support of his claim. F.I.R was lodged against the applicant and his sons and he was arrested.
4. ' A bail application was moved before the Special Judge, Emigration, Quetta, who after hearing the parties rejected the same vide order dated 28-4-2011, hence this bail application.
5. ' Syed Ayaz Zahoor, learned counsel for the applicant contended that the applicant is totally innocent and he has falsely been implicated in this case. He further contended that there is no material evidence against the applicant on the record of the case. That there is also delay in lodging the F.I.R. for which, no proper explanation is available. He further contended that no document has been produced by the complainants to establish that they had paid the alleged amount to the applicant. He further contended that the applicant is an old ailing man of 75/80 years, besides, Challan of the case has been submitted and the applicant is no more required by the prosecution for further investigation, thus requested that the applicant may be granted bail at this stage. He relied upon the cases of Muhammad Mustaqeem v. State (2004 YLR 68), Saeed Ahmed v. State (1996 SCM R 1132) Syed Amanullah Shah v. State (PLD 1996 SC 241) and Zafar Iqbal v.
6. State (2000 PCr.LJ 834).
7. ' On the other hand Mr. Rauf Atta, learned Standing Counsel has opposed the bail application and submitted that the applicant is involved in an heinous offence and so far as the delay in lodging the F.I.R. is concerned that has properly been explained. He further contended that sufficient documentary evidence is available on record to connect the applicant in the commission of offence. He further argued that the persons, who are involved in the activities of human smuggling, do not issue any receipt for the amount received by them, therefore, non-production of the receipts to show that the applicant had received money from the complainants is immaterial.
8. 'I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and with their assistance have perused the record minutely. It may be observed that the applicant is nominated in the F.I.R. The allegations as contained in the F.I.R. are duly supported by the complainant and prosecution witnesses. The prosecution 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 discussed. In the instant case, there is allegation that applicant and his sons have taken huge amount from the complainants on the pretext of sending them to Australia. The punishment provided for the alleged offence is upto 14 years or fine or both. Moreover, the cases referred by learned counsel for the applicant is distinguishable from the facts and circumstances of the present case.
9. ' For the foregoing reasons, I do not find any merits in this bail application, which is hereby rejected.
10. However, the trial Court is directed to proceed and dispose of the case of the applicant within two months after receipt of this order.
11. ' The observations made hereinabove are tentative in nature and shall have no bearing on merits of the case.
12. ' Bail application stands disposed of in the above terms.