MAZHAR SHAH Versus THE STATE
This matter arose from an application under Section 498 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 seeking confirmation of pre-arrest bail in a case registered under Sections 406, 420, and 119 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The prosecution alleged that the co-accused failed to hand over the original registration documents of a purchased tractor despite receiving partial payments, and that the police subsequently impounded the vehicle. The core legal questions before the High Court were whether pre-arrest bail can be confirmed when no specific role is ascribed to the accused in the FIR or in witness statements under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and whether an inherently civil transaction can be prosecuted as a criminal offence. The High Court confirmed the interim pre-arrest bail, holding that merely mentioning a person's name without attributing an overt act is insufficient to sustain criminal culpability, indicating mala fides where the complainant widened the net to implicate relatives. Furthermore, a dispute primarily civil in nature cannot be converted into a criminal prosecution.
- Whether pre-arrest bail can be confirmed when an accused is merely nominated in the FIR without any specific role being ascribed to them?
- Whether statements recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 that fail to impute an overt act to the accused justify confirmation of pre-arrest bail?
- Can a dispute prima facie of a civil nature be converted into a criminal offence to justify arrest and prosecution?
- Section 498, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 497(1), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 161, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 406, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 420, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 119, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
Through this application under section 498, Cr.P.C., the petitioner seeks bail before arrest in case F.I.R. No.183 registered on 17-6-2001 at Police Station Bahlak, District Faisalabad on the statement of Muhammad Aslam under sections 406, 420, 119, P.P.C.
2. Brief facts narrated by the complainant are that the tractor about 14 months ago was purchased from Idrees Shah for a consideration of Rs.1,85,000, at the time of occurrence Rs.1,00,000 was paid in the presence of Yasin Shah and father of the complainant. Photo copies of the documents were produced by Idrees Shah accused and it was agreed that the remaining amount will be paid after one year and the original documents will be provided by Idrees Shah to the complainant. He has already paid Rs.79,600 in the presence of the witnesses to Idrees Shah, and Rs.5,400 is outstanding against the complainant but Idrees Shah is not handing over the original Registration Book and Transfer Letter. He has insisted for handing over the Transfer Letter but Idrees Shah is putting of the matter by one way or the other. It has been mentioned that Sub-Inspector Sikandar Baloch is friend of Idrees Shah and they had taken tractor into possession and has been sealed in the Police Station.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the offences are not covered the provisions contained in subsection (1) of section 497, Cr.P.C. The petitioner has been mentioned as accused with mala fide intention and ulterior motives. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contents that the statement made by the witness under section 161, C. P. C. does not ascribe any role to the petitioner in the occurrence.
4. Learned State counsel opposed this application on the ground that the accused is nominated in the F.I.R. and has not joined the investigation.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and has perused the record. Only name of the petitioner as accused person has been mentioned and no role has been ascribed to him. I have noticed that the statement recorded under section 161, Cr.P.C. does not ascribe any role to the petitioner for the commission of the crime. Merely mentioning the name of the petitioner in the case will not be sufficient to make out the case against the accused person: The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner seems to be correct that the complainant has widen his net to involve all the relatives of Idrees Shah accused against him. Prima facie case of the petitioner seems to be of civil nature which cannot be converted into criminal offence. I find no reason to dismiss the bail petition of the petitioner as otherwise it is a case of no evidence to the extent of involvement of the petitioner. The bail of the petitioner already granted to him is confirmed in the circumstances of the case.
H.B.T./M-1903/L Interim bail confirmed.