' Through this petition Riaz Ahmed petitioner has sought post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No, 225 registered at Police Station F.I.A., Passport Cell, Lahore on 7-9-1992 for offences under section 17/22 of the Emigration Ordinance, 1979.
2. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the State it has been noticed that Qaisar Abbas complainant had appeared before the learned Special Judge (Central) Lahore on 26-5-2000 at the time of hearing of the petitioner's application for bail before the said learned Court and had categorically made a statement that he had affected a compromise with the present petitioner and also that the present criminal case had been got registered by him due to some misunderstanding of facts. Qaisar Abbas complainant has also appeared before this Court today in person and has reiterated the above mentioned stand before this Court as well. In this view of the matter the case against the petitioner surely calls for further inquiry into his guilt within the purview of subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C.
3. The learned counsel for the State have vehemently opposed this petition mainly on the ground that the present petitioner had become a fugitive from law as he had concealed himself from the Investigating Agency for a period of about 8 years. It has, thus, been argued by them that the petitioner is not entitled to an exercise of discretion by this Court in the matter of bail. This contention of the learned counsel for the State has seriously been controverted by the learned counsel for the petitioner who has referred to the cases of Nadeem v. The State PLD 1996 Karachi 490, Inayatullah Khan v. State 1996 PCr.LJ 1548 and Muhammad Sadiq v. Najeeb Ali and others (1995 SCMR 1632) wherein it has been held that in the absence of any other evidence against as an accused from his ascension alone is not sufficient to disentitle him to the concession of bail. There may be another angle of looking at the present case. It has already been observed above that the complainant had refused to support the allegations leveled against the petitioner in the F.I.R. There is no other independent evidence available on the record to substantiate the allegations leveled in the F..I.R. The case against the petitioner is, thus, certain one of further inquiry into his guilt within the purview of subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. It is trite law that in a case calling for further inquiry into the guilt of an accused person bail is to be granted to such an accused person as a matter of right. As against that the concession of bail is sometimes refused to an accused who has absconded only on the consideration of a question of propriety. It goes without saying that whenever a question of propriety is confronted with a question of right the latter must prevail.
4. For what has been discussed above this petition is allowed and the petitioner is admitted to bail in the sum of Rs, 30,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.