MUHAMMAD ZAMAN Versus State

ORDER

ZUBDA-TUL-HUSSAIN, J.--- The petitioner who is accused of breach of trust and cheating which resulted in depriving the complainant of an amount of Rs.7 lass with excuse that he shall provide him motorcycles on subsidized rates but he neither accomplished the trust nor returned the money to the complainant, has applied for post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.449 of 2006, dated 28-11-2006, under sections 420 and 406, P.P.C., registered at Police Station Channi Goth, District Bahawalpur.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that two months delay in registration of the case is sufficient to cause reasonable aspersion against the veracity of the complainant and the petitioner who is behind the bars since 30-8-2008 for an offence which is not covered by prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C., is entitled to the concession of bail.

3. The learned D.P.-G. opposed the bail contending that in view of the facts alleged in the F.I.R. the offence under sections 406 and 420, P.P.C. is duly made out and the petitioner could not be given the premium for his own misdeeds by extending the benefit of bail to him at the present stage of the case.

4. There is no doubt that the F.I.R. has been lodged with a delay of about eight months but the explanation given by the complainant in the peculiar circumstances of the case is just natural because if there was a commitment on the part of the petitioner to provide motorcycles to the complainant on subsidized rates and he provided a few of them to the complainant, the latter was justified to pursue him and make an effort for getting the needful done in due course. If ultimately he came to the conclusion that he had been cheated and his trust had been violated he could lodge the F.I.R. belatedly and the delay in such situation could not be detrimental to his case at bail stage.

5. The petitioner is behind the bars for the last about seven months and the offence is not covered by the prohibitory clause, yet it also cannot be denied that the grant of bail is a discretionary relief for which the relevant circumstances can he taken into consideration and the Court can justifiably refuse to exercise this discretion in favour of the accused petitioner if it prima facie transpires that the alleged offence has caused serious detriment to the complainant. In the instant case, by the given facts, the petitioner not only betrayed the trust of the complainant and cheated him but also in doing so caused such financial loss to him as maybe the source of irreparable loss towards his individual economic position as well as the well being and peaceful financial life of his family. I am of the considered opinion that in the given circumstances of the case the petitioner cannot claim bail as of right in a non-bailable offence even though the ease does not fall under the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. The bail petition is, therefore, dismissed.

N.H.Q./M-158/L Bail refused.