MUDASSAR JAVAID vs THE STATE
The petitioner sought pre-arrest bail in a case registered under sections 406 and 420 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, alleging criminal breach of trust and cheating. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the nature of the allegations, the findings of the police investigation, and the outcome of a prior arbitration process. The complainant argued that the petitioner had committed a heinous offence and failed to honor an undertaking regarding the return of embezzled funds. However, the State counsel clarified that a police inquiry found the petitioner innocent, noting that an audit report indicated the company suffered losses rather than misappropriation, and that the petitioner was placed in column No. 2 of the challan. The Court held that since the petitioner was not required for further investigation or recovery, and given the findings of the audit and the arbitrator, the petitioner was entitled to relief. The Court confirmed the interim bail, emphasizing that the absence of incriminating material and the lack of necessity for further custody justified the grant of bail.
- Is an accused entitled to bail when the police investigation finds them innocent and places them in column No. 2 of the challan?
- Does the existence of an audit report showing business losses rather than misappropriation constitute sufficient grounds for the grant of bail in a case under sections 406 and 420, Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Can bail be confirmed when the accused is no longer required by the police for investigation or recovery purposes?
- 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.---The petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No,269, dated 19- 12-2004 registered under sections 406/420, P.P.C. At Police Station Rail Bazar, Faisalabad.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has been falsely involved in this case; that there is a delay of six months in lodging the F.I.R. Without any plausible explanation; that as per contents of the F.I.R. The matter entirely relates to civil nature; that there is no sufficient incriminating material against the petitioner and that the offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C.
3. Conversely, learned counsel for the complainant opposed the grant of bail. He contends that the petitioner has committed an heinous offence, therefore, he is not entitled to any relief. The earlier application was dismissed on merits and all the grounds raised in the instant bail were raised, considered and rejected by his lordship Rustam Ali Malik, J., while discussing Criminal Miscellaneous No, 3906-B-2005 on 12-7-2005. In the instant case the petitioner was released on bail by the Hon'ble Judge clearly on the understanding that the matter be referred to arbitratiox committee which shall after hearing to the parties fix the liability and decision of bail was postponed and petitioner was released on bail. Further submits that decision of the arbitrator was one-sided and has been passed without hearing the complainant. Since the petitioner has not lived up to his undertaking and has not returned the embezzled amount, he is not entitled to any discretionary relief.
4. The learned State counsel submitted that as per police inquiry petitioner has not been found guilty. This ground was not available when the first bail was dismissed. As per audit report the company sustained losses and no misappropriation was found or unearthed. However, the challan was submitted on the direction of the Trial Court. No recovery could be effected during investigation. Petitioner has been placed in column No,2 by the police and is no more required to effect any recovery.
5. In view of the above, it appears that the petitioner is notinvolved in any criminal misappropriation of fund as it has been recordedby the auditor that the company sustained losses and no misappropriation was found or unearthed or detected. During the investigation the petitioner was found to be innocent. He remained on judicial remand and no recovery was effected from him. He is no more required by the police as per statement of the learned State counsel. He has been placed in column No,2 and challan has been submitted simple on the direction of the Court after rejecting the request of cancellation of case. Finally the arbitrator appointed by the parties also observed that no misappropriation was done by the petitioner. The interim bail already granted to the petitioner by this Court on 23-11-2005 is confirmed subject to his furnishing fresh bail bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court.