MUHAMMAD IMRAN vs The STATE and another
The petitioner sought pre-arrest bail in a criminal case registered under Section 406 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, stemming from an FIR alleging that the complainant handed over an amount of nine hundred thousand rupees as trust to the petitioner, which the petitioner subsequently refused to return. The core legal question was whether the mere use of the word 'amanat' or trust in the FIR establishes the ingredients of criminal breach of trust without specific details regarding the currency notes or underlying transaction. The Lahore High Court held that simply mentioning 'amanat' does not attract Section 405 or 406 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 when the basic ingredients of the offence are missing, and that the absence of identification marks or specific numbers of the currency notes makes recovery immaterial for denying bail. The court laid down the principle that a money dispute leading to a potentially mala fide criminal implication warrants the confirmation of pre-arrest bail.
- Does merely mentioning the word 'amanat' in an FIR attract the provisions of Section 405 and 406 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Is pre-arrest bail permissible when mala fide involvement due to a money dispute between the parties cannot be ruled out?
- Does the absence of specific denomination or identification marks of currency notes handed over affect the ground for recovery in a bail petition?
- Section 405, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 406, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
MALIK SHAHZAD AHMAD KHAN, J.---The petitioner Muhammad Imran through the instant petition seeks pre-arrest bail in case FIR No, 551 dated 18.05.2018 registered at Police Station Ichra District Lahore offence under Section 406 of P.P.C.
2. Arguments heard. Record perused.
3. As per brief allegations leveled in the FIR, the complainant had friendly relationship with the petitioner. On 28.02.2018 at 04:00 p.m., the complainant handed over an amount of Rs.900,000/- as trust to the petitioner in presence of the witnesses, namely, Ahsan Mudassar and Khadim and later on, when he (complainant) demanded the abovementioned amount, the petitioner refused to return the same hence, the abovementioned FIR. It is not understandable that when there are so many banks in the city of Lahore then why the complainant handed over the amount of Rs.900,000/- to the petitioner for keeping the said amount as trust with him. Prima facie, it appears that the word 'amanat' (trust) has malafidely been mentioned by the complainant in the FIR in order to make it a cognizable offence punishable under Section 406 of P.P.C. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of Miraj Khan v. Gul Ahmed and 3 others (2000 SCM R 122), has held that by merely mentioning the word 'amanat' (trust), in the contents of the FIR would not attract the provisions of Section 405 of P.P.C. punishable under Section 406 of P.P.C., when otherwise ingredients of the said offence are not attracted from the contents of the FIR. No specific denomination, identification marks or number of the currency notes, which were handed over by the complainant to the petitioner, have been mentioned in the FIR therefore, this petition cannot be dismissed merely on the ground of possible recovery of the amount of the complainant from the petitioner. Reliance in this respect may be placed on the case of "Shahid Imran v. The State and others" (2011 SCM R 1614). Possibility of mala fide involvement of the petitioner in this case by the complainant due to money dispute between the parties cannot be ruled out at this stage therefore, this petition is allowed and interim pre-arrest bail already granted to the petitioner is confirmed subject to his furnishing the bail bonds in the sum of Rs.100,000/- (Rupees one hundred thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.