Muhammad Amjid and another vs State and another
This petition concerns a request for pre-arrest bail by two petitioners accused in an FIR registered under Section 406 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for criminal breach of trust. The complainant alleged that the petitioners misappropriated cash and gold ornaments entrusted to them for spiritual treatment. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to pre-arrest bail given the circumstances of the case. Upon review, the Court observed that the FIR was lodged after an unexplained delay of one year and nine months, and notably failed to specify the date, time, or place of the alleged entrustment. The Court held that the ingredients of the offence were prima facie missing, suggesting the dispute was civil in nature, and that the petitioners' false involvement due to malice could not be ruled out. Furthermore, the offence did not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Consequently, the Court confirmed the pre-arrest bail, emphasizing that incarceration would serve no useful purpose given the petitioners had joined the investigation.
- Does an unexplained delay in lodging an FIR support the grant of pre-arrest bail?
- Can bail be granted when the alleged offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Is a dispute that is prima facie civil in nature a valid ground for confirming pre-arrest bail in a criminal case?
- Section 406, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
The petitioners Muhammad Amjad and Mst. Parveen Bibi seek pre-arrest bail in case/FIR No. 260, dated 02.06.2021, offence under Sections 406, PPC, registered at Police Station Saddar Mian Channu, District Khanewal.
2. Precisely the allegation against the petitioners is that they alongwith their co-accused committed criminal breach of trust by misappropriating cash Rs. 16,00,000/-and gold ornaments weighing 12- tolas belonging to the complainant, which were given to them on dif ferent occasions on account of spiritual treatment of the complainant.
3. Arguments heard and record perused.
4. On bare perusal of the record, it reveals that no specific date, time and place of alleged entrustment had been mentioned, the FIR, which has been lodged after an unexplained delay of about one year and nine months, prima facie, the ingredients of Section 406, PPC are conspicuously missing as prima facie there appears to be some dispute of civil in nature between the parties, therefore, the possibility of false involvement of the petitioners with malice and ulterior motive of the complainant cannot be ruled out, the offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Cr.P.C., The petitioners have joined the investigation, as such sending them behind the bars would serve no useful purpose, resultantly , the instant bail petition is allowed and ad-interim pre-arrest bail already granted to the petitioners vide order dated 16.07.2021 is confirmed, subject to their furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one hundred thousand only) each, with one surety each, in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.