Hafiz MUHAMMAD NADEEM Versus State
ORDER
MUSHTAQ AHMED TARAR, J.--- At the very outset learned counsel for the petitioners states that he wants to withdraw this petition to the extent of petitioner Hafiz Muhammad Nadeem. Resultantly this petition to the extent of petitioner Hafiz Muhammad Nadeem is dismissed being withdrawn.
2. Usman Amjad petitioner seeks anticipatory bail in case FIR No.165/2015 dated 25.2.2015 registered under section 406, P.P.C. at Police Station Farid Town, District Sahiwal.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case; that neither the petitioner has committed any criminal breach of trust nor the provisions of section 406, P.P.C. are attracted in this case; that in fact the complainant purchased medicines of Rs.4,00,000/- from the petitioner and only handed over one cheque of Rs.1,00,000/- which was also dishonoured and to avoid the payment of the petitioner this false case has been registered; that there is a delay of about 05 months in lodging the FIR which fully makes the prosecution case doubtful; that no amount was handed over by the complainant to the petitioner as trust/Amanat and in this way no case under section 406, P.P.C. is made out. He placed reliance upon Umair Aslam v. Station House Officer and 7 others (2014 PCr.LJ 1305), Khayyam Bilal v. The State and others (2014 PCr.LJ 39), Samina Ashraf v. The State and another (2013 YLR 1678), Shahid Imran v. The State and others (2011 SCMR 1614) and Ghulam Ali v. The State and another (2013 MLD 891).
4. Conversely learned A.P.G assisted by learned counsel for the complainant opposed the bail application and argued that the provisions of section 406, P.P.C. are made out as the medicines of the complainant were with the petitioner as `Amanat'; that in the application before the learned Addl. Sessions Judge the petitioner has not raised any mala fide against the complainant for false implication, hence, he cannot take this plea at this stage; that delay is not fatal in such like cases. Learned counsel for the complainant has placed reliance upon Muhammad Aslam Bajwa v. The State and another (PLD 2004 Supreme Court 780), Shahbazudddin Chaudhry v. The State (PLD 2004 Supreme Court 785), Khadim Hussain v. The State (2004 SCMR 1755), Usman Noor v. The State and another (2011 YLR 686), Rana Muhammad Arshad v. Muhammad Rafique and another (PLD 2009 Supreme Court 427), Khalil Ahmed v. The State and another (2013 PCr.LJ 389), Atiq Niazi v. The State and others. 2013 PCr.LJ 1145, Mst. Rukhsana Iqbal v. The State and others. (2015 UC 276), Munawar Hussain v. The State (2003 SCMR 1658) and Muhammad Zaman v. The State (2009 PCr.LJ 913).
5. Arguments heard, record perused and precedents referred considered.
6. As per record this case was registered on 25.2.2015 against the petitioner Usman Amjad and his co-accused Hafiz Muhammad Nadeem on the application of Abdul Wahid with the allegations that the accused persons deal in pesticides; that in June, 2014 the accused persons came to his house and persuaded him that they will arrange pesticides and asked him to pay money, whereupon in the presence of Kashif Hameed and Faqir Muhammad he handed over the cheque of Rs.3,00,000/- to the accused; that the petitioner got encashed cheque on 9.6.2014 and promised to supply the pesticides within one week; that later on when complainant approached the petitioner, the petitioner replied that the pesticides are lying with him as `Amanat', the same will be supplied tomorrow. Finally the complainant stated that later on the accused persons sold his pesticides to another person and he sustained loss of Rs.7,00,000/- as his crop was damaged. It is clear from the FIR that allegedly the complainant paid Rs.3,00,000/- to the petitioner for the purchase of pesticides and the said amount was not handed over to the petitioner as `Amanat' or trust. The complainant has not entrusted the said amount to the petitioner for investment and it was payment for purchase of pesticides. There is no entrustment of the amount or of pesticides by the complainant to the petitioner and the conetents of FIR show that there was business transaction for sale and purchase of pesticides between the complainant and the petitioner. Therefore, in these circumstances prima facie the applications of section 406, P.P.C. in this case against the petitioner becomes matter of further inquiry in view of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan, in the judgment reported as Shahid Imran v. The State and others (2011 SCMR 1614) and judgment of this Court reported as Umair Aslam v. Station House Officer and 7 others (2014 PCr.LJ 1305) and the probability for false implication of the petitioner in this case cannot be ruled out. In this view of the matter the petitioner becomes entitled for the concession of pre-arrest bail. Resultantly this petition is accepted and interim pre-arrest bail already granted to the petitioner Usman Amjad is confirmed, subject to furnishing fresh bail bonds in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with one surety in the like amount, to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.
SL/M-216/L Bail granted.