Mirza MUHAMMAD RAMZAN vs STATE
This matter arises from a pre-arrest bail petition filed under Section 498 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 in respect of FIR No. 337-2006 registered under Section 406 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Defence Area, Lahore, concerning an alleged criminal breach of trust involving the transfer of a motor vehicle. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to pre-arrest bail where the dispute appeared to be of a civil nature, no recovery was to be made from him, and he was not the beneficiary of the transaction. The Lahore High Court held that the petitioner had made out a case for pre-arrest bail, confirming the interim bail already granted. The court laid down the principle that where a criminal case arises from what appears to be a civil dispute regarding the purchase and sale of a vehicle, there is a delay in lodging the FIR, and the accused is not shown to be a beneficiary or in possession of any recovered incriminating material, the concession of pre-arrest bail is appropriately granted.
- Whether pre-arrest bail can be granted when a dispute of a civil nature is converted into a criminal case?
- Is a petitioner entitled to pre-arrest bail when no recovery is to be made from him and he is not the beneficiary of the alleged offence?
- Does a significant delay in the registration of the FIR justify the confirmation of pre-arrest bail?
- Section 498, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 406, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
Through this application under Section 498 Cr.P.C., Mirza Muhammad Ramzan the petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail in a case FIR No. 337-2006, dated 13.3.2006, registered under Section 406 PPC at Police Station Defence Area, Lahore, on the application of Sohail Ahmad, the complainant.
2. According to the facts of the FIR, the petitioner alongwith the co-accused had committed breach of trust in the wake of managing transfer of Car Bearing Registration No. LOD-4203 owned by the complainant.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner had allegedly put his signature on the receipt and identified Asad Shah, when he received an amount of Rs. 69,000/-, but the petitioner did not tamper with any document and no such document has so far been taken into possession by the police; that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case due to suspicion, that there was dispute of civil nature between the co-accused and the complainant, which has been converted into criminal offence with malafide intention; that even otherwise, the petitioner is not connected with the offence in any manner as he was not beneficiary of the alleged transaction and he is entitled to the concession of pre-arrest bail.
4. The learned Deputy Prosecutor General for the State has opposed this bail petition.
5. From the perusal of record, it shows that the petitioner had not tampered with any document and such receipt had not been received from his possession by the police. He had only put his signature on the receipt for the verification of Asad Shah, who had sold the vehicle to one Ramzan.
From the bare perusal of the FIR, it appears that there was dispute of civil nature between the parties for the purchase and sale of the vehicle, which has been converted into criminal offence.
For the time being, there is no evidence on the record that the petitioner had committed any breach of trust with the complainant. The sending of the petitioner to jail will not advance the prosecution case any more as nothing is to be recovered from the petitioner, who admittedly was not beneficiary of the alleged fraud committed with the complainant, Even otherwise, there was delay of about 3 months in the registration of the FIR, which is very significant and possibility of fasle implication of the petitioner cannot be ruled out
6. For the foregoing reasons, the instant bail petition is accepted and ad-interim pre-arrest bail already granted to the petitioner is hereby confirmed subject to furnishing fresh bail bonds in the sum, of Rs. 1,00,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.