UMAR JALAL BHANDARA vs STATE, etc.
This matter concerns a petition for pre-arrest bail filed by the petitioner, Umar Jalal Bhandara, in relation to an FIR registered under Section 406 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The complainant alleged that he had entrusted a sum of money to the petitioner for the purchase of medicines, which the petitioner subsequently failed to return or account for. The core legal question was whether the ingredients of the offence of criminal breach of trust were prima facie established, given the nature of the business relationship between the parties and the significant delay in reporting the incident. The Court observed that the occurrence took place in 2012, but the FIR was registered in 2015, with no explanation for the delay. Furthermore, the Court noted that the transaction appeared to be a business dealing rather than an entrustment of property. Conceding that the offence under Section 406 was not made out, the Court held that the petitioner's involvement was likely based on mala fides. Consequently, the petition was accepted, and the ad interim pre-arrest bail was confirmed.
- Does a business transaction involving the advance payment for goods constitute an entrustment of property under Section 406 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Can an unexplained delay of over two years in lodging an FIR be a ground for granting pre-arrest bail?
- Is pre-arrest bail appropriate when the ingredients of the alleged offence are not prima facie established?
- Section 406, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
' Umar Jalal Bhandara petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail in a case registered against him vide FIR No. 55/2015 dated 10.02.2015 offence under Section 406, PPC at Police Station Quaid-e-Azam Industrial Estate, Lahore.
2. According to FIR, Muhammad Afzal Tariq complainant was running business of medicines and used to supply medicines to Government hospitals. Meanwhile, Umar Jalal Bhandara petitioner contacted the complainant and introduced himself as Director of A-Z Pharmaceutical Company and stated that he is also son in law of Chief Executive of the Company and used to sale medicines on behalf of the company in the name of Umer Enterprises. The petitioner allegedly appointed the complainant as sole distributor in Government business and gave authority letter and other relevant documents to complainant in this regard. The complainant delivered a cross cheque amounting to Rs. 8,28,000/- to petitioner for purchasing medicines and petitioner provided the requisite medicine to the complainant as per delivery order. It has further been alleged in the FIR that on 20.09.2012 the complainant had to go to Saudi Arabia for performance of Hajj, therefoit, on 18.09.2012 he (complainant) delivered another cross cheque amounting to Rs. 12,00,000/- to petitioner and stated to petitioner that an amount of Rs. 15,93,000/- would remain with the petitioner as a 'trust' and if during that period some medicines would be required, the petitioner would give said medicines to Zeeshan son of the complainant on his demand. After performance of Hajj the complainant contacted the petitioner time and again but he is not delivering aforesaid amount of Rs. 15,93,000/- to the complainant. Hence instant FIR was registered.
3. After hearing the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and learned DPP for State, it has been noticed that instant occurrence took place on 15.08.2012 whereas matter was reported to the police on 10.02.2015 with an extraordinary delay of more than two years and five months for which no proper explanation has been furnished by the complainant. Admittedly there was business relations between the complainant and petitioner and the disputed cheque amounting to Rs.
12,00,000/- was delivered by the complainant to the petitioner for purchasing medicines and said amount was not entrusted by the complainant to the petitioner, therefore, prima facie from the contents of FIR, application of offence under Section 406, PPC against the petitioner requires further inquiry. Learned DPP has frankly conceded that from the contents of FIR offence under Section 406, PPC is not made out against the petitioner. In these circumstances, false involvement of the petitioner in the instant case on the basis of mala fides can not be ruled out.
4. For what has been discussed above, this petition is accepted and ad interim pre-arrest bail already granted to the petitioner by this Court vide order dated 4.5.2015 is confirmed subject to his furnishing fresh bail bond in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lac only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court.