BILAL AHMAD vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a petition for pre-arrest bail filed by Bilal Ahmad, who was implicated in an F.I.R. registered under sections 406 and 420 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The complainant alleged that he entrusted Rs. 3,00,000 to the petitioner's co-accused for a business venture, which was subsequently misappropriated by both individuals. The petitioner contended that the money was never entrusted to him, he had no involvement in the transaction, and the co-accused had been declared innocent by the police. The core legal question was whether, given the lack of direct entrustment and the exoneration of the co-accused by the police, the petitioner was entitled to pre-arrest bail. The Court held that since the money was not entrusted to the petitioner, the allegation of misappropriation was unfounded, and the police's inclusion of the petitioner in the case reflected mala fides. Furthermore, the alleged offences did not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Consequently, the Court confirmed the pre-arrest bail.
- Does the absence of direct entrustment of money to an accused negate the charge of misappropriation under sections 406 and 420 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Is an accused entitled to pre-arrest bail when the co-accused has been declared innocent by the police and the offences do not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Section 406, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 420, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' FAZAL-E-MIRAN CHAUHAN, J.--- Petitioner Bilal Ahmad, is seeking pre-arrest bail in case F.I.R.
Offence under sections 406 and 420, P.P.C. Registered at Police Station, Fateh Sher, District Sahiwal for the allegations that the complainant paid Rs,3,00,000 to Ahmad Raza, co-accused of the petitioner, for the purpose of business, but later on, petitioner and co-accused usurped the said amount and flatly refused to return the same. Hence this case.
2. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the F.I.R. Does not disclose a case under sections 406 and 420, P.P.C. Against the petitioner, as the disputed money was never entrusted to the petitioner nor he had misappropriated the same. The complainant had given Rs,3,00,000 to Ahmad Raza co-accused and the petitioner has no concern with the same. Co-accused has been declared innocent by the police, hence, no case is made out against the petitioner. Further contends that there is no evidence on record that the complainant made a bargain with the petitioner. The offences alleged to have, been committed by the petitioner do not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. The petitioner is brother-in-law of Ahmad Raza co- accused and he has been wrongly involved in this case. Also contends that mala tide intention, ulterior motive and humiliation have been proved on record to falsely involve the petitioner in this false case, hence, he deserves the concession of pre-arrest bail.
3. On the contrary, learned counsel for the complainant assisted by learned State counsel opposed the bail petition.
4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, it manifests that the amount was given by the complainant to co-accused Ahmad Raza for a joint venture for business with the petitioner. Said Ahmad Raza has been declared innocent by the police. Since, the money was not entrusted to the petitioner, question of misappropriation by the petitioner does not arise. In these circumstances, declaring the petitioner to be guilty of the offence by the police reflects the mala tides. The offences alleged to have been committed by the petitioner do not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C.
5. In view, of the above discussion, this petition is accepted and ad interim pre-arrest bail already granted to the petitioner is hereby confirmed subject to his furnishing fresh bail bonds in the sum of Rs,2,00,000 (Rupees two lac only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.
Cited by 1 case
- KHALIL AHMED vs The STATE and anothers 2013 P Cr. L J 389