IDREES SHAH vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, arising from an FIR registered under Sections 406, 420, and 119 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioner, accused of criminal breach of trust and cheating regarding the sale of a tractor-trolley, sought bail on the grounds that the dispute was essentially civil in nature and had been converted into a criminal case to exert pressure. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the nature of the allegations and the pending civil-related disputes. The Court held that the petitioner was entitled to bail, observing that the dispute appeared to be a civil matter improperly converted into a criminal case, and noting that the alleged offences did not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The key principle laid down is that where a dispute is prima facie civil in nature, criminal proceedings should not be used as a tool for coercion, and bail should be granted if the offences are non-prohibitory.
- Is a dispute regarding the sale of a vehicle and possession of documents essentially civil in nature?
- Does a case involving Sections 406, 420, and 119 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Can criminal proceedings be initiated to resolve a dispute over the ownership and possession of a vehicle?
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 406, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 420, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 119, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 550, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' Through this application under section 497, Cr.P.C. The petitioner seeks bail after arrest in case F.I.R. No,183 registered on 17-6-2001 on the application of Muhammad Aslam under sections 406/420/119, P.P.C. At Police Station Bahlak, District Faisalabad.
2. Brief facts of the case as stated by the complainant are that Muhammad Yasin and Idrees Shah Petitioner deal in oil business. Idrees Shah was owner of Tractor Trolly bearing No, 3953 M.N. Model 1984/85 which was purchased by the complainant on 7-2-2000 for consideration of Rupees 1, 85,000. Out of which 1 lac, was paid on the same day and Rupees 85,000 was the balance amount which was to be paid in instalments. Photostat copies of the registration book and other documents were handed over to the complainant by the petitioner. Punchiat was convened as Idrees petitioner was not handing over the original documenents to the complainant. In the Punchiat, the petitioner took a period of 1 month. In the meanwhile, the Tractor Trolly was taken into possession by Police Station Garh under section 550, Cr.P.C. Subsequently, it was taken on Superdari by the petitioner. According to the complainant, the petitioner is guilty of the offence and case be registered.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is owner of the tractor being in .Possession of the original documents and after considering all the documents, the Superdari of the tractor was given to the petitioner by the Assistant Commissioner vide his order, dated 21-2-2001, against which revision petition has been filed by the complainant which is still pending before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faisalabad. He further contends that a civil dispute has been converted 'into a criminal offence with mala fide intention and with ulterior motive in order to pressurize the petitioner to hand over the tractor trolly to the complainant without receiving the amount. Learned counsel further contends that offences are not punishable with life or 10 years' R.I.
Petitioner is in jail for the last 4 months and may be allowed bail.
4. Learned counsel for the State opposed the bail application on the ground that petitioner is nominated as main accused in this case and prima facie, case is made out against him.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record myself. There is no dispute that the petitioner is owner of tractor trolly bearing No,3953/MNG and still is in possession of the original documents. Whether the petitioner has sold the tractor trolly for a consideration of Rs,1,85,000 and has received the amount 1 lac as earnest money from the complainant and has handed the tractor trolly to A the complainant or not are the questions which are yet to be decided after the thorough investigation by the police. Prima facie it seems that the complainant in connivance of the police has converted the civil dispute into a criminal offence. Petitioner is not involved in the case falling under the prohibitory clause. Petitioner has made out a case for grant of bail. He is allowed bail after arrest in the sum of Rs,50,000 with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Judicial/Duty Magistrate, Faisalabad.