MAHMOOD-UL-HASSAN vs THE STATE
This petition for post-arrest bail arises from F.I.R. No. 175/2005, registered at Police Station Peoples Colony, Faisalabad, involving allegations of embezzlement against the petitioner, a Purchase Officer, and his co-accused, an Assistant Purchase Officer, at a textile mill. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail despite being charged with offences involving substantial financial loss to the employer through alleged fake transactions. The Court observed that the petitioner was duly nominated in the F.I.R. and that the investigation revealed the use of fake receipts for purported purchases. The Court held that the absence of recovery from the petitioner did not entitle him to bail, as the embezzled funds may have already been utilized. Furthermore, the Court noted that the charge under Section 467 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 attracts the prohibitory clause of Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Consequently, the Court dismissed the bail petition, finding no merit in the request for relief.
- Does the absence of recovery of embezzled funds during investigation entitle an accused to post-arrest bail?
- Does a charge under Section 467 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 attract the prohibitory clause of Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Section 380, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 408, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 468, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 471, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 109, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 467, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497(1), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' M. BILAL KHAN, J.---Mahmoodul-Hassan son of Ghulam Hassan, the petitioner, by filing the instant petition seeks post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No,175, dated 9-3-2005, registered at Police Station, Peoples Colony, Faisalabad for offences under sections 380, 408, 468 and 471 read with section 109, P.P.C. At the instance of Mian Liaqat Ali Qamar, General Manager, Messrs J.A. Textile Mills Limited, Faisalabad.
2. Precisely the allegation against the petitioner, according to the F.I.R., was that he being the Purchase Officer in connivance of his co-accused Amjad Hussain, who was Assistant Purchaser Officer with the complainant (Textile Company) had embezzled an amount of Rs,11,44,572.
3. The petitioner had been arrested on 24-12-2005 and is in custody ever since. His plea for post- arrest bail did not find favour with the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faisalabad, who proceeded to dismiss his application vide order dated 16-2-2006. Hence, the instant petition.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at considerable length and have also gone through the record brought by Hamid Ali, A.S.-I.
5. It has been observed the petitioner has been duly nominated in the F.I.R. Admittedly, he was employee of the complainant-Company and being Purchase Officer had been entrusted with different affairs thereof. He in connivance with his co-accused Amjad Hussain, who was Assistant Purchase Officer, had been using receipts of various Companies showing the purchase of different articles, which during the course of inquiry by the complainant-Company, turned out to be fake transactions. Both the accused persons had caused substantial loss to the company. Insofar as the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that no recovery had been effected either from the petitioner or at his instance during the course of investigation is concerned, it does not make any difference because in such-like cases sometimes recovery may not be effected, as the accused had been utilizing the amount embezzled by him. The offence under section 467, P.P.C.
With which the petitioner has been charged for the time being attracts the prohibitory clause of section 497(1), Cr P.C. In these circumstances, I am not inclined to allow him the relief sought for.
6. Resultantly, there being no merit in this petition, the same is dismissed.
Cited by 2 cases
- FURRUKH SHAHZAD And Another vs THE STATE And Another 2011 YLR 809
- IFTIKHAR AKBAR vs THE STATE 2008 MLD 159