BEHZAD RASHEED and 3 others vs STATE and 2 others
This matter concerns a petition for confirmation of pre-arrest bail in a criminal case registered under Sections 406 and 409 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, involving allegations of misappropriation of pledged paddy bags. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to pre-arrest bail given the complainant's allegations of stock shortage versus the petitioners' evidence of a signed undertaking by the complainant acknowledging receipt of the full stock. The Court held that the petitioners were entitled to bail, finding that the complainant had executed a document confirming physical verification and receipt of the pledged stock, which negated the prima facie case of embezzlement. Furthermore, the Court noted that the complainant's family was already facing a separate criminal case initiated by the bank, suggesting the current FIR was likely a counter-blast motivated by mala fide intent. Consequently, the Court confirmed the pre-arrest bail, establishing the principle that where documentary evidence contradicts the complainant's allegations of misappropriation, and there is a strong possibility of mala fide implication, pre-arrest bail is warranted.
- Does a signed undertaking by a complainant acknowledging receipt of pledged goods negate a prima facie case of misappropriation?
- Can pre-arrest bail be granted when there is a strong possibility that the FIR was registered with mala fide intent to counter another criminal case?
- Is a petitioner entitled to pre-arrest bail when documentary evidence contradicts the prosecution's allegation of embezzlement?
- Section 406, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 409, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
The petitioners have claimed pre-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No, 21 dated 20.7.2012 registered under Sections 406/409; P.P.C. at Police Station, FIA Gujranwala.
2. The allegation against the petitioners is that they have misappropriated the paddy bags belonging to M/s. Sidra rice Mills which were pledged against the loan taken by the owners of the rice mills namely Javed Dar, Waqas Dar and Abbas Dar father and brother of the complainant and were kept in custody of Imtiaz Ahmed and Sajjad Ali, the employees of Muqaddam Company.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has stated that case against the petitioners is false and concocted one; petitioners have not committed any breach of trust and have not misappropriated the pledged articles. The complainant had taken away the physical possession of the pledged stock after its due verification and the case has been got registered against the petitioners with mala fide intention and ulterior motives just to disgrace them in the public. The officials of the bank had got registered a case FIR No, 86/12 against the father and brother of the complainant.
Therefore, the present case has been got registered just to black-mail there and as such they are entitled to the confirmation of their pre-arrest bail.
4. The application is opposed from the complainant side and it is contended that after purchasing the stock and paying its price to the bank the complainant checked the pledged stock it was found short. The petitioners have misappropriated the stock which is required to be recovered from them.
Therefore, they are not entitled to the confirmation of pre-arrest bail.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record.
6. A loan facility provided by the bank of Khyber was availed by Sidra Rice Mills owned by the father and brother of the present complainant. The bank instituted a suit for recovery of loan against the aforesaid mills. The Court passed an order regarding the auction of stock on 7.6.2012. The complainant approached the bank purchasing the stock and paid the price of the stock to the bank and the bank directed to hand over the stock to the complainant. Allegedly when the complainant went to take the possession of the stock it was found short but the petitioners have placed on record a copy' of undertaking dated 23.5.2012 (annexure-E.I) regarding the handing over of the physical possession of the pledged stock consisting of 13845 paddy bags of Karnal Basmati rice lying in the godown at M/s. Sidra Rice Mills Sialkot wherein it is categorically mentioned that before taking physical possession of the pledged stock the complainant has physically checked and counted the pledged paddy bags which were 13825 and were in tact in all respects. The said undertaking bears a thumb impression as well as signatures of the complainant Mst. Kalsoom Javed.
7. During the course of arguments the execution of the said document has not been denied.
Furthermore, there is no denial of this fact that the pledged bags were 13845 and the same had been received by the complainant. Therefore, prima facie the question of embezzlement or misappropriation of a part of the pledged stock does not arise in view of the aforesaid undertaking.
Furthermore the bank had already got registered a case FIR No, 86/12 dated 7.2.2012 under Section 406, PPC at Police Station Saddar Sialkot against Javed Dar, Abbas Dar and Waqas Dar father and brother of the complainant. Therefore, possibility of false implication of the present petitioners to counter the aforesaid FIR cannot be ruled out.
8. In these circumstances, pre-arrest bail already granted to the petitioners is hereby confirmed subject to furnishing fresh bail bonds in the sum of rupee Rs, 2,00,000/- each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.