Muhammad Mehboob vs The State and another
This matter comes before the Lahore High Court through a petition filed under Section 498 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, wherein the petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail in respect of an offence under Section 406 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, registered vide FIR No.1325/14 at Police Station Chung, Lahore. The core legal question concerns whether the ingredients of criminal breach of trust are made out for the purposes of pre-arrest bail, particularly given an unexplained two-year delay in reporting, the absence of specific transaction dates, and the nature of the arrangement between the parties. Holding that the bricks were entrusted for sale rather than safe custody and noting the unexplained delay and previous non-conviction status of the petitioner, the Court confirmed the pre-arrest bail. The key principle laid down is that where the applicability of the penal provision is a matter of further probe, and false implication cannot be ruled out due to delayed reporting and lack of safe custody entrustment, pre-arrest bail ought to be confirmed to prevent unjustified incarceration.
- Whether pre-arrest bail can be confirmed when there is an unexplained delay of two years in the registration of the FIR?
- Does the entrustment of goods for onward sale rather than safe custody attract Section 406 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 prima facie?
- Can the corpus of an accused be handed over to the police solely for the purpose of recovery during pre-arrest bail proceedings?
- Section 498, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 406, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
Through this petition under Section 498 Cr.P.C. the petitioner has sought pre-arrest bail in case FIR No.1325/14, dated 16.12.2014 registered at Police Station Chung, Lahore in respect of an offence under Section 406 PPC.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Deputy Prosecutor General and learned counsel for the complainant and have also gone through the record of this case with their able assistance. This is bail before arrest and only tentative assessment is allowed at this stage.
Admittedly no date and time of alleged transaction has been mentioned by the complainant in the FIR and even otherwise there is a delay of about two years in the registration of FIR which has not been explained by the complainant which prima facie reflects that the FIR has been got recorded after due deliberation and consultation. A bare perusal of FIR shows that the complainant had handed over the bricks to the petitioner for their onward sale to different persons and allegedly the petitioner and his son were working as his sales agent. It is also an admitted fact that the bricks were not entrusted to the petitioner for safe custody to be returned on demand, so the attraction of Section 406 PPC in this case is a matter of further probe. Reliance in this regard can be placed upon 2011 SCM R 1614. Admittedly the petitioner is previous non-convict and never involved in any other case. He has already joined the investigation. The corpus of the petitioner cannot be handed over to the police merely for the purpose of recovery. I may observe here that an ultimate conviction and incarceration of a guilty person can be repaired by the wrong caused by a mistaken relief of interim bail granted to him but no satisfactory reprisal can be offered to an innocent person for his unjustified incarceration at any stage of case if he is acquitted in the long run.
3. For what has been discussed above, false implication of the petitioner by the complainant after joining hands with the police by concocting a false story cannot be ruled out, hence, this petition is allowed and the ad-interim pre-arrest bail already granted to the petitioner vide this Court's order dated 31.03.2015 is hereby confirmed subject to his furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one hundred thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned Trial Court/ Area Magistrate.
4. The observations made above are tentative in nature and are strictly confined to the decision of this bail petition only.