' MUHAMMAD YOUNIS THAHEEM, J.---Accused/petitioner Haji Faqir Khan seeks his release on bail in case FIR No, 81 dated 29.09.2016 charged under sections 18(b), 22(b) Emigration Ordinance, 1979 registered at Police Station Aza Khel, Nowshera.
2. Prior to this petition, the petitioner approached to Judge Special Court Immigration and Central Anti Corruption Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Peshawar for the grant of bail which was turned down vide order dated 05.12.2016.
3. The above stated FIR was lodged in the light of preliminary inquiry conducted upon written complaint filed by Shahid Khan whereby he alleged that Haji Faqir Khan extorted an amount of Rs,2,00,000/- from him with the false promise of sending him abroad (Turkey) for employment, however he was abandoned in Turkey thereby he came back to Pakistan on emergency passport and charged the accused Haji Faqir Khan for the commission of above stated offence.
4. Having heard arguments of learned counsel for the parties, record perused with their valuable assistance.
5. Perusal of the record would reveal that an agreement deed dated 08.11.2013 was executed between the accused/petitioner Haji Faqir Khan and Fazl-e-Mula whereby it was written that in respect of rupees three lacs accused/petitioner will bound to provide Visa/work permit within a period of one month by sending the complainant Shahid Khan to Turkey through Iran and to this effect rupees one lac was paid to the accused/petitioner in the presence of witnesses but the statement of this solitary witness Fazl-e-Mula through which above mentioned agreement deed has been executed with the petitioner Haji Faqir Khan, has not been recorded. As per allegation of complainant that the accused/petitioner has extorted rupees two lacs but no one has been cited as witness in whose presence another one lac has been paid. Moreover the record further speaks that Qasim Wardak has also been not nominated as an accused in the present case through which complainant was sent to Turkey and accused/petitioner has been given the role of agent for sending him abroad so whether complainant was cheated by the present accused/petitioner or was sent to abroad by his own sweet will, needs further probe in the matter.
6. The present accused/petitioner has not been directly charged in the First Information Report and after the delay of two and half years of the occurrence had been charged for the aforesaid offence after conducting preliminary inquiry. Even otherwise, the "offences under sections 18 and 22 of the Emigration Ordinance provide alternate punishment of fine, therefore, if offence is proved against petitioner then in that eventuality, he may be awarded punishment upto extent of 14 years or fine or both and if bail is refused it would amount punishment without trial so accused/petitioner is entitled to the concession of bail.
7. Resultantly, this bail petition is accepted and accused/petitioner is admitted to bail by furnishing bail bonds to the tune of Rs,2,00,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Judicial Magistrate concerned.
8. Needless to mention that the above observations being purely tentative in nature, should in no way prejudice the proceedings before the learned trial Court.
' These are the reasons for the short order of even date.