WAQAR AHMAD SETH, J.---Petitioner who is charged in a case registered against him under sections 18(b) and 22(b) of the Emigration Ordinance, 1979, vide FIR No.52 dated 24.6.2013, Police Station FIA, Peshawar, seeks his release on bail mainly on the ground that none of the offences he is charged with falls within the ambit of prohibitory clause.
2. As against that, the learned appearing on behalf of the State, opposed the grant of bail by submitting that the petitioner is directly charged in the FIR and that his abscondence for over a year, prima facie, connects him with the crime. He next submitted that that the petitioner has committed fraud with the complainant as such he does not deserve the concession of bail notwithstanding the fact that the offences he is charged with do not attract prohibitory clause.
3. I have gone through the record carefully and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties.
4. As none of the offences the petitioner is charged with attracts prohibitory clause, I do not see any strong reason to withhold the concession of bail when grant of bail in such like case is a rule and refusal is an exception, especially when mere abscondence cannot be stretched to unworkable extremes, that too, when it, at its best, can be used as corroborative and not evidence of the charge.
5. For the reasons discussed above this petition is allowed and the petitioner is directed to be released on bail, provided, he furnishes bail bond in the sum of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rs. Five lacs) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court, who is to ensure that the sureties arc local, reliable and men of means. This is the detailed order furnishing reasons to my short order of today's' date.