Hassan Javed vs State and another
This matter arises from a petition for pre-arrest bail filed by Hassan Javed, who stands accused by his employer of committing a criminal breach of trust causing financial loss to the company by receiving customer payments into personal accounts. The core legal question concerns whether the allegations and available record disclose reasonable grounds for criminal breach of trust under the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, warranting the petitioner's arrest, or if the case falls within the scope of further inquiry under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. The Supreme Court converted the petition into an appeal and allowed it, admitting the petitioner to anticipatory bail. The court held that the prosecution failed to point out material or evidence establishing the documented transactions or confirming the alleged confession, and that commercial loss cannot be equated with criminal breach of trust. The key principle laid down is that where the prosecution's case lacks foundational details and forensic verification of evidence, the matter falls within the remit of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, justifying the grant of pre-arrest bail.
- Whether commercial loss incurred by an employer can be equated with criminal breach of trust under Section 405 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860?
- Does the absence of time, date, and forensic confirmation of evidence bring a case within the remit of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898?
- Can pre-arrest bail be granted when the intended arrest is argued to be tainted with mala fide and the prosecution's case lacks foundational evidence?
- Section 405, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed, J.--Hassan Javed, petitioner herein, anticipating arrest, seeks admission to bail; he has been accused by his employer Naseer Hussain for committing criminal breach of trust along with Abu Turab, Jarar Haider and Muhammad Atif in consequence whereof the company , styled as Dev Batch (Pvt.) suffered a loss of US $50000. It is alleged that, alarmed by persisting loss, the Director of the company arranged audit of the accounts to discover that the accused were receiving payments by the customers in their personal accounts and that they also transacted payments from company's account for consignments personally settled with foreign customers. It is further alleged that when confronted with the foul play the accused confessed the guilt and paid back a sum of US $6261 with an undertaking for the remainder , subsequently retracted, prompting recourse to law .
It is argued that the intended arrest is tainted with mala fide inasmuch as the process of law is being abused to convert a rendition issue into a criminal prosecution to cast its rigor upon the petiti oner, vulnerably placed; there is nothing on the record to even obliquely suggest breach of trust within the contemplation of Section 405 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, concluded the learned counsel.
2. Heard. Record perused.
3. Petitioner's employment with the complainant is a common ground, nonethele ss, accusation notwithstanding, learned law officer assisted by learned counsel for the complainant has not been able to point out, even obliquely , any material/evidence to establish alleged transactions, each admittedly documented; there is no statement on the record to confirm confession by the accused, either individually or jointly . In addition to the crime report, the only statement is that of Bilal Ahmed PW, who referred to some "voice messaging" by the petitioner as proof of his guilt without production thereof before the Investigating Officer, foreclosing the possibility of its forensic confirmation.
Not even the time or date of impugned transactions is mentioned in the crime report; investigation sans the details as well. Loss, allegedly incurred by the employees, cannot be equated with breach of trust. Prosecution has to structure itself upon foundations yet to be laid and this by itself brings petitioner's case within the remit of sub Section 2 of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, a coordinate requirement for the grant of relief, prayed for; the foregoing status of the case is confirmed by no other than the Inves tigating Officer himself vide case diary dated 8.1.2020. Even otherwise, argument that mala fide is lurking behind the intended arrest cannot be dismissed out of hand and as such given the petitioner's clean past, his remission into custody would be a measure far from being conscionable. A case for judicial protection stands made out. The petition is converted into appeal; allowed; the petitioner is admitted to anticipatory bail on furnishing bonds in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (one lac) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court. Above observations shall not cast their shadow on the outcome of the trial, to be essentially settled on the strength of available evidence.