Muhammad Akram vs State etc
This matter comes before the Lahore High Court through a petition filed by Muhammad Akram seeking pre-arrest bail in case FIR No. 328 dated 07.06.2021 registered at Police Station Qila Didar Singh, District Gujranwala, for an offence under Section 406 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question concerns whether the petitioner is entitled to pre-arrest bail given the considerable delay in reporting the incident, the pre-existing business relations, a pending civil suit for rendition of accounts, and the fact that the petitioner joined the investigation with no recovery made. The court held that the unexplained delay of twenty-eight months in reporting, coupled with prior civil litigation and lack of recovery, made out a case for the confirmation of pre-arrest bail. The key principle laid down is that unexplained monumental delay in lodging an FIR, alongside pending civil matters regarding accounts between the parties, supports the grant of pre-arrest bail where mala fides can be inferred from the overall facts and circumstances of the case.
- Whether an unexplained delay of twenty-eight months in lodging an FIR is a ground for confirming pre-arrest bail?
- Does the pendency of a civil suit for rendition of accounts between the parties affect criminal proceedings under Section 406 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Can pre-arrest bail be confirmed when the accused has joined the investigation and no recovery is reported from them?
- Section 406, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
Muhammad Akram, petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail in case registered vide FIR No. 328 dated 07.6.2021 at Police Station Qila Didar Singh, District Gujranwala for of fence under Section 406, PPC.
2. The allegation against the petitioner is that of committing criminal breach of trust.
3. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it was noticed that the occurrence took place on 15.2.2019 but the incident was reported after about twenty eight months of the occurrence i.e. on 07.6.2021. No plausible explanation was forthcoming on record for such delay . No time of occurrence find mentioned in the crime report, which suggested the business relations between the parties. The record suggested that a suit filed by the petitioner for rendition of accounts is pending adjudication between the parties prior to the registration of the FIR: This would also be adjudged by the learned trial Court after recording evidence, at trial if constituents of Section 406, PPC are made out. The petitioner has joined the investigation and nothing was recovered from him. Even otherwise, it is difficult to prove the element of mala-fide by the accused through positive/solid evidence/material and the same is to be deduced and inferred from the facts and circumstances of the case. In the circumstances, the petitioner has succeeded to make out a case for confirmation of ad-interim pre- arrest bail.
4. For the foregoing reasons, the application is allowed and the ad-interim pre-arrest bail earlier granted to the petitioner is confirmed subject to his furnishing fresh bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 100,000/-with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Duty Judge.