AYYAZ MEHMOOD vs STATE and anothers
This is a criminal petition filed under Section 498 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 seeking pre-arrest bail in respect of an F.I.R. registered under Section 406 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for criminal breach of trust. The core legal question concerns whether the petitioner is entitled to pre-arrest bail where there is an unexplained delay in reporting the matter, a lack of direct evidence regarding the entrustment of funds, and the offence falls within the non-prohibitory clause of Section 497. The Lahore High Court held that since the offence falls within the non-prohibitory clause, the case requires tentative assessment, the petitioner has joined the investigation without misusing the concession, and no entrustment of an amount is prima facie established to connect him with the crime, the pre-arrest bail should be confirmed. The key principle laid down is that bail in offences falling within the non-prohibitory clause must be favorably considered and should only be declined in exceptional circumstances.
- Whether pre-arrest bail can be granted when an offence falls within the non-prohibitory clause of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Does an unexplained delay in lodging the F.I.R. impact the consideration for pre-arrest bail?
- Is pre-arrest bail justified when the accused has already joined the investigation and has not misused the concession of bail?
- Section 498, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 406, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' Through this petition under Section 498, Cr.P.C., Ayyaz Mehmood, petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail in case F.I.R No, 596, dated 18.06.2016, for offence under Section 406, PPC registered with Police Station Liaquat Abad, Lahore.
2. Succinctly, the allegation against the petitioner as per crime report got lodged by one Aman Ullah Khan Niazi is that he along with his co-accused committed breach of trust by misappropriating the amount of the complainant.
3. Arguments heard. Record perused.
4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record it has been noticed that this is bail before arrest and only tentative assessment are required at this stage. The occurrence in this case took place on 30.01.2015 but the same has been reported to the police on 18.06.2016 i.e, with delay of more than 11/2 years that too without any explanation. Record reveals that though the petitioner was nominated accused in the F.I.R but at present nothing is available on record to suggest that entrust of any amount was made to the present petitioner to connect him with the commission of crime. The allegation against the petitioner is that he only accompanied his co-accused, Jabran Butt when the alleged amount was taken from the complainant through his Manager Afzal Mayo which he did not return. Whether the petitioner has any willful intention to committed the alleged offence or not, can only be determined by the trial Court after recording of evidence. According to the Investigating Officer, the petitioner has already joined the investigation and reportedly there is no misuse of concession of bail. No useful purpose would be served by sending him behind the bars. Thus keeping in view the law laid down in the case of Zafar Iqbal vs. Muhammad Anwar and others (2011 SCM R 1708) ordaining that where a case falls within the ambit of non-prohibitory clause the concession of granting bail must be favorably considered and should only be declined in exceptional cases. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, this petition is allowed and the ad interim pre-arrest bail already granted to the petitioner is confirmed subject to his furnishing fresh bail bonds in the sum of Rs, 200,000/- (Rupees two lacs) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.