' NISAR HUSSAIN KHAN, J.---Petitioner Muhammad Sharif seeks his release on bail in case F.I.R. No,42, dated 7-5-2013 registered under sections 18(b)/22(b) of Immigration Ordinance, 1979 at Police Station FIA, AHTC, Peshawar.
2. Facts as narrated in the F.I.R. Are that one Saeed Ahmad lodged a complaint to the High-ups of FIA to the effect that petitioner Muhammad Sharif who is an agent of Hijrat Corporation Overseas Employment Promoters, Deans Trade Centre, Peshawar, with the connivance of Wasal, the Master/owner of the Corporation have sent his two relatives Abbas and Sabir to Saudi Arabia but despite receipt of huge amount, their relatives have not been provided either valid legal documents for stay at Saudi Arabia nor employed somewhere, due to which they are staying there without any employment. The complainant charged the said agent namely Muhammad Sharif and owner of the Corporation, namely Wasal for the commission of fraud and cheating. Accordingly, the aforesaid criminal case was registered against them.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that two persons have been charged in the F.I.R. Out of whom, Wasal absconding accused is owner of the Travelling Agency while petitioner is just acting as his Manager; that documents relied upon by the petitioner are yet to stand the test of scrutiny and cross-examination; that there are two punishments provided for the offence i,e, imprisonment or fine which makes the case of the petitioner arguable for the purpose of bail.
4. Learned counsel for the complainant argued that petitioner has admitted his guilt about sending of the two persons to Saudi Arabia on the fake documents, that allegations made in the F.I.R. Are supported by the agreement and other pieces of evidence; that petitioner absconded for six months and was arrested on 9-11-2013 while his co-accused Wasal is still absconding, as such he is not entitled to the concession of bail.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record with their valuable assistance.
6. Without dilating upon merits of the case lest it may prejudice case of either side, undisputedly, sections of law levelled in the F.I.R. Provide two alternate punishments of imprisonment of 14 years or fine or both. In such like cases it has been consistent practice of this Court to allow bail on the principle that when Statutes provide two punishments then for the purpose of bail, the lesser one is considered. Whether the trial Court after recording evidence, inflicts sentence of imprisonment or fine, it is the sole discretion of that court which cannot be ascertained at this stage. However, this statutory provision itself, makes case of the petitioner as one of further enquiry as to which punishment is to be inflicted.
7. Learned counsel for the parties were asked to get the matter settled between the parties as according to them there is no enmity between the parties except the instant dispute which may be settled amicably and time was allowed to ponder over suggestion. At the time of announcement of the order, learned counsel for the petitioner was very much present while neither the complainant nor his counsel was available. Be that as it may, the parties are at liberty to settle their dispute amicably. However, petitioner, in the given circumstances and in view of legal position, is admitted to bail provided he furnishes bail bonds in the sum of Rs,5 lac with two sureties, each in the like amount IA to the satisfaction of the Illaqa/Judicial Magistrate who shall ensure that the sureties are local, reliable and men of means.