AHMAD SAEED AWAN, J. - These are the detailed reasons for order dated 27.10.1994.
2. The petitioner was-allowed post-arrest bail on 2.10.1993 but the same was dismissed for non- prosecution on 10.1.1994 by the learned Special Judge Central (Lahore). The petitioner was again admitted to interim pre-arrest bail on 20.4.1994, hence this petition.
3. According to the FIR. The petitioner, in the year 1992 allegedly got Rs. 97.000/- from three persons (Mansha etc.) for sending them to Kuwait and to arrange their employment. The petitioner neither sent them abroad for employment nor returned the amount, therefore, committed offence under section 17/22 of Immigration Ordinance, 1979.
4. I have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record.
5. The petitioner on 1.8.1993 pleaded before the learned Special Judge that he indeed got .Rs.97,000/- from the three persons as alleged, he tried his level best but could not arrange their employment abroad and he himself was aggrieved person in that regard too as some one else had promised and he also agreed to return the amount. The complainant was sent for by the Court and the petitioner returned Rs.10,000/- on 2.10.1993 in the Court and promised to pay the balance amount in equal eight instalment amounting to Rs.9,500/- and first instalment was to start from lst November, 1993. Admittedly, the petitioner so far has returned Rs.49,000/-.
6. The occurrence took place in the year 1992 and the FIR was lodged with a delay of one year; the challan so far has not been submitted and the complaint was not made by the concerned person but by some one else, not aggrieved party. If the petitioner would have been guilty minded, neither he would have not agreed to repay the amount nor would have paid Rs.49,000/-. As such, admission of the accused before a Court tentamounts to confession of the offence and needs no further evidence for conviction. As more than half of the amount has already been repaid by the accused and he is still willing to pay the amount of balance amount in instalments, the to such an accused on merits ordinarily should not be cancelled even though he may be absent on some dates prior to submission of Challan and appears before the Court on his own. At the first instance, instead of recalling the bail, bailable warrants should have been issued, unless it is proved that the accused on bail has grossly misused the consession.
7. For what has been discussed above, I am prima facie of the view what it is a fit case for the grant of bail.