SHAHZAD ALI and another vs THE STATE
This matter concerns an application for the confirmation of pre-arrest bail filed by Shahzad Ali and Mst. Parveen Bibi, who were implicated in a criminal case registered under Sections 420, 395-A, and 506 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The complainant alleged that he had paid a significant sum of money to the Chief Executive of a company, and upon discovering alleged fraud, demanded a refund. The petitioners sought anticipatory bail, arguing that there was no evidence linking them to the receipt of any funds from the complainant and that their involvement was merely due to their familial relationship with another accused. The complainant opposed the bail, citing documents allegedly showing Mst. Parveen Bibi's partnership with the main accused. Upon review, the Court found that the investigation failed to produce any evidence demonstrating that the petitioners had obtained money from the complainant or induced him to part with it. Consequently, the Court confirmed the interim pre-arrest bail, holding that in the absence of evidence of direct involvement or inducement, the petitioners were entitled to relief.
- Is pre-arrest bail confirmable when the investigation fails to provide evidence of the accused's direct involvement in the alleged offence?
- Does a familial relationship with a co-accused constitute sufficient grounds to deny pre-arrest bail in the absence of other evidence?
- Is evidence of inducement or receipt of funds necessary to sustain charges under sections 420, 395-A, and 506 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Section 420, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 395-A, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 506, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
IFTIKHAR HUSSAIN CHAUDHRY, J.---Criminal case F.I.R. No,252 of 2000 dated 11-9-2000 under sections 420, 395-A and 506,. P.P.C., was registered at Police Station, Sabza Zar, Lahore, on the report of one Maj. (Retired) Ghulam Saqlain. According to the complainant he paid a sum of Rupees 12 lacs to Abdul Hameed, who was Chief Executive of Messrs Diwan Tea Company. It was alleged by the complainant that a further sum of Rupees 6 lacs was also paid to Abdul Hameed.
The complainant subsequently found that Abdul Hameed and others were fraudsters and demanded return of Rupees 18 lacs advanced by him to said Abdul Hameed. On failure of the accused to. meet the demand of the complainant, the matter was reported to police where after criminal case was registered.
2. Shahzad Ali and his mother Mst. Parveen Bibi submitted under consideration application for grant of anticipatory bail.
3. Both the petitioners were allowed anticipatory bail, and interim by order dated 1-2-2001 and the matter was posted for further proceedings today.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that there is not an iota of evidence in the hands of the police which could manifest that the petitioners had obtained any sum of money from the complainant. It was submitted that, the petitioners were involved in the case on account of their relationship with Mamshad another accused in the case. Learned counsel for the complainant on the other hand referred to certain documents showing Mst. Parveen to be partner of Abdul Hameed in a Firm.
5. No evidence was collected by the police in the ,course of investigation which could show that Shahzad Ali or Mst. Parveen had obtained any sum of money from the complainant or had induced the complainant to part with the money. As a consequence the anticipatory bail allowed to the petitioners by order dated 1-2-2001 is, hereby, confirmed.