' This is an application for bail after arrest by Sheikh Fayaz Ahmad petitioner in respect of a case registered against him vide F.I.R. No, 214/92, dated 6-8-1992 under section 17/22 of the Emigration Ordinance, 1979 at Police Station, F.I.A. Passport Cell, Lahore.
2. Brief facts of the prosecution case as contained in the F.I.R. Are that during the investigation in Inquiry No,124/92 it had transpired that the petitioner had deprived one Ghulam Qadir of Rs, 1,50,000 on the pretext of sending him to America for employment but neither the complainant was sent to America for job nor the said amount was returned to him.
3. The petitioner had applied for his bail before the learned Special Judge Central but the same was refused on 12-9-1992. Hence this petition.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record with care. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is a delay of 1-1/2 years in lodging the F.I.R. Which makes the case against the petitioner doubtful. He further submits that the alleged dishonoured cheque of Rs, 1,50,000 was carrying the date of the year 1990, but the alleged occurrence according to F.I.R. Has taken place in the year 1991, thus the whole of the prosecution story stands belied. He has laid emphasis on the point that the offence under sections 17 and 22 of the Ordinance does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. As the former carries the sentence of 5 years'
R.I. While the latter provides 14 years' R.I. Or fine or both. He further submits that no reasonable ground was made out to believe that the petitioner had committed the abovesaid offences, so according to him the petitioner is entitled to be released on bail as of right.
5. To substantiate his argument, he has placed reliance on Muhammad Akhtar v. The State 1984 P Cr. L J 2340, Shafqat All v. The State 1987 P Cr. L J 971 and Shakeel Hussain Rashidi v. The State 1992 M L D 99.
6. On the other hand, learned Federal Counsel has opposed the grant of bail to the petitioner by submitting that the petitioner is arrying on this fraudulent business in the name of White Air-Ways and is in the habit of depriving people of their valuable money on the pretext of sending them abroad for employment purposes. He submits that another Inquiry No,112, dated 13-4-1992 is also under the investigation by F.IA. Staff against the petitioner regarding the fraudulent receipt of Rs,45,000 from on Ch. Azmat Khan, Advocate for sending his son to Germany. He submits that the petitioner has committed double fraud with the complainant of this case, firstly by depriving him of the amount of Rs,1,50,000 and secondly by issuing him a cheque of the said amount which was dishonoured and referred back to the drawer. He submits that the date of occurrence given in the F.I.R. As 1991 is due to clerical mistake and it may not be allowed to be used against the interests of the prosecution. Finally he submits that the petitioner with such a blackish record, is not entitled to concession of bail. He, however, relies on Muhammad Riaz v. State PLD 1986 Kar.
567.
7. I have given my anxious consideration to the abovesaid submissions and have gone through the precedents cited by the parties. The petitioner has fraudulently obtained the amount of Rs,1,50,000 from the complainant for sending him abroad for job. He committed yet another fraud with the complainant, by giving him the cheque of the abovesaid amount, which was referred back to the drawer, that the previous antecedents of the petitioner also reflect adversely on the conduct of the petitioner as according to the learned Federal Counsel another inquiry of the similar nature is under the investigation with the F.IA.
8. In view of the above discussions and without going deep into the merits of the case lest it may prejudice the case of either side, I decline to release the petitioner on bail as prima facie he stands connected with the C alleged crime. This petition, therefore, is dismissed.