Mirza MUHAMMAD RAMZAN vs THE STATE
This matter comes before the Lahore High Court through a petition filed under Section 498 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, whereby the petitioner Mirza Muhammad Ramzan seeks pre-arrest bail in F.I.R. No. 337 of 2006 registered under Section 406 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Defence Area, Lahore, concerning an alleged breach of trust regarding the transfer of a motor vehicle. The core legal question revolves around whether the petitioner was connected to the alleged criminal breach of trust or if the matter constituted a civil dispute, and whether grounds for confirming pre-arrest bail were made out. The Court held that the petitioner merely signed a receipt to identify the co-accused, was not a beneficiary of the transaction, no recovery was pending from him, and a three-month delay in lodging the F.I.R. made his implication doubtful while giving rise to a civil dispute. Consequently, the Court accepted the petition and confirmed the pre-arrest bail subject to furnishing fresh sureties. The key principle laid down is that where an accused is not shown to be a beneficiary of an alleged transaction, acted merely as an identifier, and the underlying matter appears to be of a civil nature accompanied by unexplained delay in FIR registration, a case for pre-arrest bail is made out.
- Whether pre-arrest bail can be granted when the dispute appears to be of a civil nature?
- Does the absence of being a beneficiary in a financial transaction entitle an accused to pre-arrest bail?
- What is the evidentiary significance of a delayed F.I.R. in considering a pre-arrest bail petition?
- Section 498, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 406, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
' IJAZ AHMAD CHAUDHRY, J.- Through this application under section 498, Cr.P.C.' Mirza Muhammad Ramzan the petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail in a case F.I.R. No,337 of 2006, dated 13-3-2006, registered under section 406, P.P.C, at Police Station Defence Area, Lahore, on the application of Sohail Ahmad, the complainant.
2. According to the facts of the F.I.R., the petitioner along with the coaccused 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 mala fide 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 identification of Asad Shah, who had sold the vehicle to one Ramzan. From the bare perusal of the F.I.R., 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 F.I.R., which is very significant and possibility of false implication of the petitioner cannot be ruled out.
' For the foregoing reason; 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.
Cited by 5 cases
- RIASAT ALI vs STATE PLJ 2009 Cr.C. (Lahore) 74
- RIASAT ALI Versus State 2009 YLR 847
- MUZAMMAL JAVED vs STATE PLJ 2008 Cr.C. (Lahore) 785
- Muzammal Javed vs The State K.L.R. 2008 Criminal Cases 329
- MUZAMMAL JAVED Versus State 2008 PCrLJ 1460