TARIQ ALI vs STATE and another
This petition for pre-arrest bail arises from FIR No. 366/2016 registered at Police Station Chahlyak, District Multan, under Section 406 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, concerning allegations of criminal breach of trust involving mobile phones valued at Rs. 23,26,650/-. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, who was implicated alongside a co-accused, met the criteria for pre-arrest bail given the nature of the transaction and the evidence presented. The Court observed that the underlying agreement was executed solely between the complainant and the co-accused, Jaffar Abbas, and that the subsequent implication of the petitioner appeared to be an afterthought. Furthermore, the Court found that the essential ingredients of criminal breach of trust under Section 405 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 were prima facie absent. Consequently, the Court confirmed the ad-interim pre-arrest bail, holding that the petitioner's incarceration would serve no useful purpose for the prosecution, especially as he had already joined the investigation. The decision emphasizes that where criminal liability is not clearly established and mala fide intent is suspected, pre-arrest bail is appropriate.
- Does the absence of the essential ingredients of criminal breach of trust under Section 405 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 justify the grant of pre-arrest bail?
- Can a petitioner be granted pre-arrest bail when the prosecution's case appears to be an afterthought and based on mala fide intentions?
- Is pre-arrest bail appropriate when the accused has already joined the investigation and incarceration would serve no useful purpose?
- Section 405, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 406, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
' Through this petition Tariq Ali, the petitioner has sought pre-arrest bail in case FIR No, 366 dated 13.07.2016, in respect of offence under Section 406, PPC, registered at Police Station Chahlyak District Multan.
2. Brief allegations against the petitioner as contained in the FIR are that the complainant is a whole sale dealer of mobile phones, the petitioner along with Jaffar Abbas co-accused took the mobile phones valuing of Rs, 23,26,650/- in the presence of Muhammad Sharif and Muhammad Ismail PW's with the commitment that they will pay the amount till 20.03.2016, otherwise, mobile phones shall be returned as it is. Statedly Jaffar Abbas co-accused had made a commitment that he will pay the above said amount. In this regard an agreement dated 05.03.2016 was also executed between the parties that the accused persons would pay the above said amount or in case they are failed to comply with they would return the mobile phones in their original capacity but the petitioner along with his co-accused neither paid the amount nor returned mobile phones to the complainant. Hence this case was registered.
3. Heard. Record perused.
4. It is prosecution's own case that both the parties have business relation with each other and the mobile phones valuing of Rs, 23,26,650/- were handed over to the Jaffar Abbas for the purpose of sale with the promise that the amount shall be given to the complainant by his co-accused Jaffar Abbas. In this regard an agreement has been chalked out between the parties on 05.03.2016, wherein it has been categorically shown that the said agreement was executed between the complainant and Jaffar Abbas co-accused. It has further been mentioned that Jaffar Abbas has further alienated the material of (mobile phones) to the petitioner. After the agreement was made FIR was registered with the delay of more than four months and it was alleged therein that the material (mobile phones) was handed over to Jaffar Abbas and the petitioner which is after thought. However, an agreement is self-explanatory to the effect that the co-accused Jaffar Abbas was responsible to pay the amount and to entangle the petitioner in the alleged offences along with his co-accused seems to be after thought and based on mala fide intention on the part of the complainant: The offence of criminal breach of trust, prima facie is not made out as the ingredients of Section 405, PPC are not existed. The petitioner has already joined the investigation and to send the petitioner behind the bars would serve no useful purpose for the prosecution.
5. For the foregoing reasons, the petition in hand is allowed and ad-interim pre-arrest bail already granted to the petitioner on 10.10.2016 is hereby confirmed, subject to his furnishing fresh bail bonds in the sum of Rs, 1,00,000/- (rupees one hundred thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court.