A case under section 17/18/22 of Emigration Ordinance, 1979 read with section 6 of the Passports Act was registered by F.LA. Vide F.I.R. No. 168 dated 27th September, 1981, against the petitioner and another. It was alleged that the petitioner alongwith the co-accused namely. Bashir Ahmad Padah received Rs. 12,300 each from seven persons for providing them employment in Saudi Arabia and for arranging their passports as well as visas to Saudi Arabia. These persons in facts went to Saudi Arabia but they were detected at the Airport for having entered in Saudi Arabia illegally. On that account they were deported to Pakistan. On the information of immigration office the F. I. A. Took up the investi--gation of the case during which the petitioner was arrested on 9th May, 1982. An application for bail was moved by the petitioner to the learned Special Judge (Central), Lahore but he refused bail vide his order dated 15th May, 1982.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the F. I. R. Suffers two years delay. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that a sum of Rs. 39,600 has already been recovered from the petitioner and only so much of the sum was alleged to have A been received by the petitioner. This particular fact is not denied by the learned counsel for the State.
3. The learned counsel for the State has opposed the bail petition on the ground that the offence committed by the petitioner falls under the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr. P. C. And it is a case of cheating and committing forgery as to the documents professed to have been issued by the Passport Office.
4. Though the return of money will not ordinarily exonerate the accused as to the commission of the offence yet it can be observed that in this particular case the confinement for the time being would serve no end and as to the forgery alleged to have been committed still the matter is not in a state where it can be said that the petitioner appears to have committed the offence unless the case is put to the Court and an elaborate inquiry follows so as to point out what sort of forgery was committed. The case as registered is not rich as to its 6 contents so as to connect the petitioner out and out with the commis--sion of the offence except that the said amount has been recovered from him, presently it cannot be said that under what circumstances this particular amount has been paid. The petitioner in the circum--stances is admitted to bail in the amount of Rs. 20,000 (Rupees twenty thousand) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the A.C./Duty Magistrate, Lahore.