MUHAMMAD SHAHID ALI KHAN vs STATE and another
This matter concerns a petition for the confirmation of ad-interim pre-arrest bail in a case involving an alleged criminal breach of trust under Section 406 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to pre-arrest bail given the circumstances of the case and the nature of the allegations. The Court observed that the FIR was lodged with a significant delay of approximately seven and a half months after the alleged occurrence. Furthermore, the Court noted that the ingredients of the offence under Section 406 were not clearly established, suggesting that the complainant attempted to convert a civil business dispute into a criminal matter with mala fide intent, evidenced by a pending suit for rendition of accounts. Holding that the offence did not fall within the prohibitory clause and that the petitioner had joined the investigation, the Court confirmed the pre-arrest bail. The key principle laid down is that where a criminal case appears to be a disguised civil dispute and the offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause, the possibility of false implication warrants the grant of bail for further inquiry.
- Is a case involving a business transaction dispute that is already the subject of a civil suit for rendition of accounts liable to be treated as a criminal offence under Section 406 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Does the delay of seven and a half months in lodging an FIR constitute a ground for granting pre-arrest bail?
- When does an offence not falling within the prohibitory clause justify the confirmation of pre-arrest bail?
- Section 406, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
After dismissal of his ad-interim pre-arrest ,bail vide order dated 09.01.2019 by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Multan, the petitioner seeks confirmation of his ad-interim pre-arrest bail granted to him vide order dated 21.01.2019 in case FIR No, 522 dated 21.06.2018, offence under Section 406, PPC, registered at Police Station Muzafarabad, District Multan.
2. Precisely the allegation against the petitioner is that he committed criminal breach of trust against fifty thousand liters diesel of the .complainant as detailed in the FIR.
3. Arguments heard and record perused.
4. From the perusal of the record, it reveals that the alleged occurrence took place on 27.10.2017, whereas the matter was reported to the police on 21.06.2018, after delay of about 71/2 months. Record further shows that the ingredients for making out an offence under Section 406, PPC are not available and it appears that the complainant has tried to colour issue of business transaction into criminal offence with mala-fide intention. The petitioner has also produced a copy of a suit for rendition of accounts and cancellation of cheque titled "Muhammad Shahid Ali vs. Rao Mudassir", which is subjudice before the learned trial Court. The Offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause. The petitioner has joined the investigation. In view of entire facts and circumstances of the case, possibility of false implication of the petitioner cannot be ruled out bringing his case within the ambit of further inquiry .
Resultantly , the instant bail petition is allowed and ad-interim pre-arrest bail already granted to the petitioner vide order dated 21.01.2019 is confirmed, subject to his furnishing 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 learned trial Court.