MUHAMMAD AKRAM LONE SAEED Versus State
This petition for post-arrest bail arises from F.I.R. No. 607, registered under sections 406 and 506 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, concerning allegations of criminal breach of trust and criminal intimidation. The complainant alleged that the petitioner failed to return an investment of Rs. 3,50,000 or pay profits from a scrap business, and subsequently threatened her. The core legal question was whether the facts, which appeared to involve a business dispute, constituted the alleged criminal offences, and whether the petitioner was entitled to bail. The Court held that the transaction was a business investment rather than a trust, meaning the ingredients of section 406, Pakistan Penal Code 1860 were not prima facie satisfied. Furthermore, the offence under section 506, Pakistan Penal Code 1860 did not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court concluded that the matter was essentially a civil liability and admitted the petitioner to bail, establishing that where criminal intent is absent in a business dispute, bail should generally be granted.
- Does a failure to return a business investment constitute the offence of criminal breach of trust under section 406 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Is an offence carrying a maximum punishment of four years imprisonment subject to the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Can a dispute that is essentially civil in nature justify the refusal of bail in a criminal case?
- Section 406, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 506, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 403, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
MUHAMMAD AKRAM QURESHI, J .---- Muhammad Akram Lone Saeed petitioner seeks post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.607 dated 4-12-2007 registered under sections 406/506, P.P.C. at Police Station Baghbanpura District Gujranwala.
2. Briefly the allegation against the petitioner is that he received an amount of Rs.3,50,000 from the complainant and purchased iron scrap weighing 205 mounds to the tune of Rs.8,00,000. Thereafter, neither the petitioner returned the said amount nor paid any profit to the complainant.
3. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, this Court has noticed that the complainant invested Rs.3,50,000 in the business of sale and purchased of scrap. According to her, the petitioner purchased the scrap by the said amount, which attained the value of Rs.8,00,000. He has neither returned her amount nor paid the profit. According to her when demand of the amount was made, the petitioner abused her and threatened her to kill. This Court has noticed that the complainant did not keep the amount of Rs.3,50,000 with the petitioner as a trust. She delivered the said amount for business but the complainant never offered rendition of accounts and aggrieved of the said situation, she lodged the instant case. Section 403, P.F.C. defines the trust. I am afraid, the facts narrated by the complainant do .not constitute the offence falling within the domain of section 406, P.P.C. Moreover, offence under section 506, P.P.C. carries maximum 'punishment of 4 years' R.I. which does not fall within the domain of prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. The petitioner was arrested in this case and lodged to judicial lock up. In other offences in hand, the tendency of superior Courts remained the grant of bail and refusal an exception. The complainant has failed to make out a case creating justification of refusal to the concession of bail.
4. From the facts and circumstances of the case, at the most a civil liability is prima facie made out. It is yet to be determined by the learned trial Court whether the provision of sections 406/506, P.P.C. are attracted from the available facts of the case or not. At present, the case of the petitioner falls within the domain of section 497(2), Cr.P.C.
5. Resultantly, the present petition succeeds and the petitioner is admitted to bail subject to furnishing of bail bonds in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 (Rs. one lac only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of Illaqa/Duty Magistrate.
H.B.T./M-163/L Bail granted.
Cited by 1 case
- RWAIDAH BIBI vs The STATE and others 2014 MLD 284