' Saeed Ahmad alias Waheed and Farooq Ahmad, the petitioners have sought for after-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No,64 dated 30-6-2002 under sections 17 and 22 of the Emigration Ordinance, 1979 registered with F.I.A., Multan.
2. Briefly the prosecution case as per F.I.R. Is that they alongwith their father Faiz-ur-Rehman and brother Munir Ahmad in connivance with each other had got Rs,4,40,000 (Rupees four lacs and forty thousand) from their 11 relatives at the rate of Rs,40,000 (Rupees forty thousand) each for getting them visa and employment in Saudi Arabia but they neither ultimately got them sent there nor returned their money.
3. It has been contended on their behalf that they have strained relation with their father for quite few years and that they have no concern at all with his activities and in fact he has secured the said amount from their 11 relatives to get them employment in Saudi Arabia; that neither the offence under section 17 nor 22 of the aforesaid Ordinance can be attracted against them; that there is three years inordinate delay in lodging the F.I.R.; that they are behind the bars for the last about four months; that no recovery was effected from them; that there is no evidence against them; and that names of only six affectees have been mentioned in the F.I.R. And not of eleven and so their case require further inquiry into their guilt. In support of bail plea. Reliance has been placed upon Muhammad Nawaz v. The State 1986 M LD 2678 (Lahore) and Riaz Ahmad v. The State 2000 YLR 2028 (Lahore).
4. Conversely, the learned State Counsel has opposed the petition on the ground that they are named in the F.I.R.; that they alongwith their father and brother Munir Ahmad have jointly secured the aforesaid amount from their eleven relatives for sending them abroad; that there is explanation of delay in the F.I.R. And that there is lot of evidence to connect them with the alleged offence which falls within the prohibitory clause.
5. I have carefully considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties with the help of available record.
6. Allegedly they alongwith their father and brother Munir Ahmad in connivance with each other have secured a sum of Rs,4,40,000 alongwith passports and identity cards from their 11 relatives at the rate of Rs,40,000 each in order to get them visa and employment in Saudi Arabia but they neither got them visa and employment nor returned their amount. Apparently there seems some explanation of delay in the F.I.R. From the facts and circumstances of the case. The eleven affectees are stated to be their relatives. Out of them, there are on record the statement of Sajid Hussain, Muhammad Azam, Manzoor Ahmad, Ghulam Shabbir Siraj Ahmad, Abdur Rehman and Ahmad Yar.
Those are to the effect that they alongwith their father Faiz-ur-Rehman and brother Munir Ahmad have secured Rs,4,40,000 at the rate of Rs,40,000 from each of them for getting them visa of Saudi Arabia.
7. They have produced no proof of their strained relation with their father. So prima facie they are connected with the alleged offence and the same falls within the prohibitory clause, of section 497, Cr.P.C. The allegation against them is that they have received amount from the affectees for sending them abroad for employment. So their case is distinguishable from the case of Muhammad Nawaz v. The State 1986 M LD 2678 (Lahore) as in that case the accused had contended they were just labourers and business was carried by his absconding co-accused.
Similarly, the case of Riaz Ahmad v. The State 2000 YLR 2028 (Lahore) is also distinguishable from their case as in that case, the complainant had refused to support the allegation in the F.I.R.
Whereas the affectees have supported the version as contained in the F.I.R. So the said case is also not applicable to their case.
8. In these circumstances, they are not entitled to bail. The petition is therefore, dismissed.