' A case under section 17/22 of Emigration Ordinance, 1979 was registered against respondent No,1 at Police Station F.I.A., Passport Cell, Township, Lahore vide F.I.R. No,125 of 1998, dated 21-8-1998 on the ground that he promised to secure employment for younger brother of the complainant namely Kh. Shuja-ud-Din in the foreign branch of United Bank Ltd., and in return received Rs,100,000 vide the impugned agreement. However, the respondent could not provide employment to the brother of the complainant as stated in the agreement, whereupon demands were lodged against him time and again. The respondent accordingly returned Rs,16,000 out of the afore said amount of Rs,100,000 and the remaining Rs,84,000 were promised to be returned for which bank cheques were issued but those were dishonored. It was, therefore, contended that the respondent aforesaid was guilty of an offence under the Passport Act as he had not only cheated but had given a false promise of securing employment abroad for brother of the complainant.
2. The Special Judge (Central), Lahore admitted respondent No,1 to bail vide a detailed order, dated 5-10-1998. The aforesaid order is assailed in this petition on the ground that it was clear from the contents of the agreement entered into between the parties that a part of amount was returned which further showed that the respondent had played a trick and as such, was liable to be punished under the Emigration Ordinance. The remaining amount was still outstanding and, therefore, the respondent was not entitled to bail in the case. On the contrary, the perusal of the order of the learned trial Judge shows that the agreement in question does not mention that brother of the complainants was to be sent abroad for which the aforesaid amount was received.
Likewise, the respondent had produced certain documents before the Court showing that open heart surgery was performed upon him in the past and he was an ailing person with the age of 60 years. Lastly, it was observed that one of the P.Ws. Namely Rashid Sadiq had sworn an affidavit showing that the consideration of Rs,100,000 was not paid in his presence although he was told that such consideration was paid to the respondent by the complainant. A request was made to the Court that the aforesaid witness be summoned in order to verify the affidavit but the Court did not find it necessary to summon him as according to the statement recorded under section 161, Cr.P.C., the witness had also stated the same way about the consideration van question. Finally, it was observed that due to the acclaimed agreement between the parties, the possibility could not be ruled out that the transaction in question could be of civil nature.
3. In this petition, it is submitted that the learned Court below misused the discretion vested in it. In this regard, it was contended that it was never verified that Rashid Sadiq P.W. Had actually given any affidavit in favour of the respondent or not. Secondly, the documents placed on record were merely prescription chits issued by a Consultant from abroad and it could not be ascertained whether or not those were the genuine documents. As such no reliance could be placed on those documents to come to the conclusion that the respondent was actually a sick person. Likewise the sympathy regarding the demise of mother of the respondent would have no relevance to the grant of bail as it would not be considered to be a valid ground.
4. After taking into consideration the contentions and on going through the documents attached with the petition, I come to a view that while granting bail to the respondent, the learned Trial Court did not exercise its jurisdiction arbitrarily. All the facts were clearly narrated and vividly discussed before allowing bail to the respondent. It is also clear that the agreement whereupon, Rs,100,000 were acknowledged by the respondent did not mention that the same were paid for securing employment of brother of the complainant abroad. The question whether or not the aforesaid amount represented consideration for sending the brother of the complainant abroad was true or not can only be substantiated during the trial and as such, at this stage, it would be a case of further enquiry. The prescription slip placed on record at page No,25 showed that the same was issued by Mayo Institute of Cardiology, Lahore and was issued by an Associate Professor showing the treatment being administered to the respondent for some disease. Likewise, the Cardiothoracic Unit of the King's College Hospital, London's slip issued by Mr. John Keates shows that the diagnosis of illness of the respondent was declared as Coronary artery disease' followed by operation resulting into the Coronary Artery grafting on 23-1-1998. The history of the patent is given in Annexures 'E/2' to E/3' which is at pages 27 and 28. It was also signed by Dr. Keates who is Consultant Cadiothoracic Surgeon. It is enough to show lo for the limited purpose of bail that the respondent is an ill person with the age of 60 years and even on that ground, he would deserve to be released on bail and as such, has rightly been allowed bail by the learned lower Court. There is no good ground for cancellation of bail already granted to respondent No,
1. The petition is, therefore, dismissed in limine with the remarks that any observation made herein would in no way effect the true merits of the case.