' After conducting enquiry into the matter, F.IA. Faisalabad had registered a case under section 17/22 of the Emigration Ordinance and section 6 of the Passports Act against the petitioners Umar Farooq, Azmat Farooq and their father Abdul Ghafoor, absconder. During enquiry No33/92 it had come out that in the year 1991 the petitioners and their father Abdul Ghafoor, co-accused on the pretext of arranging employment abroad in Saudi Arabia, they had procured Rs,2,31,000 (Rupees two lac and thirty-one thousand only) from as many as 9 (nine) persons alongwith their passports and National Identity Cards but neither arranged employment abroad for them nor returned the amount and documents received.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners has urged bail on the following premises:--
(i) The petitioners had no hand in the commission of the offence ascribable to them and it was only their father Abdul-Ghafoor who might have committed the offence.
(ii) There is no evidence against the petitioners connecting them with the offences.
(iii) Javaid Sarwar brother-in-law of the complainant has sworn affidavit to the effect that dispute of money had been settled after the sale of his house to satisfy the claimants.
(iv) The petitioners are students with clean antecedents.
3. Learned counsel for the State has opposed the bail that the petitioners are directly connected with the commission of heinous offence and they in complicity with their co-accused father had deprived many poor families of their valuables by exploiting their need for employment abroad.
Further the offences fall under prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. And the petitioners do not deserve bail especially when their father is still absconding.
4. After perusal of the record I find that some passports had been recovered from the petitioners and also certain documents carrying signature and seal of Mr. Jamshaid Iftikhar, Deputy Chief of Protocol, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Camp Office, Lahore, which when sent to the concerned source were found fake. The evidence available with the Investigating Agency ex facie connects the petitioners with the aforementioned offences.
5. The authenticity of agreement deed whereby Abdul Ghafoor accused had agreed to sell the house in favour of Ashfaq to meet the demands of the persons from whom he had received money, is disputed by the complainant and the executant of document (Abdul Ghafoor accused) is absconding and not coming forward to speak about the recovered documents.
6. The possession of incriminating articles and attending circumstances of the case fasten the petitioners with liability under offences 17/22 of Emigration. Ordinance and thus would be hit by embargo contained in section 497, Cr.P.C. In such a situation bail was also not allowed by Karachi High Court in Mushtaq Khan v. The State 1985 P Cr. L J 1759.
7. For the reasons aforementioned I would not like to admit the petitioners on bail at this stage. The investigation is also not over yet.