LAHORE: The Lahore High Court (LHC) has granted bail to Burhan Afzal, nominated in a high-profile fraud case registered by the Federal Investigation Agency, in two cases.
A single bench of the Lahore High Court heard both petitions filed by the accused and, after the conclusion of arguments, issued an order granting bail.
Barrister Ahmed Javed Awan appeared for the accused. During the hearing, defence counsel submitted that the FIA had registered cases against his client under the Immigration Ordinance, but that connecting the accused with the affairs of the consultancy company was not legally correct.
Barrister Ahmed Javed Awan told the court that the person who established the consultancy company in 2003 had since died. The consultancy company has been accused of allegedly defrauding citizens.
Defence counsel argued that after the death of the original owner of the consultancy firm, the FIA had also implicated his son in the cases, even though the person against whom the cases had been registered was neither a director nor a shareholder of the company.
Counsel for the petitioner told the court that no direct connection between the accused and the administrative or ownership affairs of the company was established, and that nominating him in the cases was therefore unjustified.
Defence counsel requested the court to grant both bail petitions in light of the facts of the cases against the accused and the available record.
After hearing arguments from both sides and reviewing the record, the court issued an order granting bail to the accused in both cases.
An order granting bail is not an acquittal and makes no finding on the truth of the allegations. The test at the bail stage is narrower: whether reasonable grounds exist to believe the accused has committed a non-bailable offence, and whether further inquiry into guilt is called for.
Where the prosecution case rests on a person’s position within a corporate entity, the absence of directorship or shareholding is a materially relevant fact at that stage, because criminal liability for a company’s conduct ordinarily attaches to those who controlled or directed it.
The argument advanced turns on the separation between a company and the individuals connected to it. A registered company is a distinct legal person; liability for its acts falls on those exercising control — typically directors and, in specified circumstances, officers responsible for the conduct of its business.
Inheritance of a deceased parent’s assets does not by itself transfer that control. Whether the accused exercised de facto control notwithstanding the absence of a formal position is a matter for the trial court, not for the bail stage.
Overseas employment and immigration consultancies operate under a licensing regime administered by the Bureau of Emigration and Overseas Employment. The Emigration Ordinance 1979 and associated rules govern who may recruit for overseas employment and on what terms, and the FIA’s Anti-Human Trafficking Circles prosecute breaches.
The trial in both cases remains pending.
Leave a Reply