Ss.497 & 498 ---Pre-arrest and post arrest bail---Merits of the case---Scope---Merits for grant of bail before arrest and after arrest are altogether different but while granting pre-arrest bail even the merits of the case could be touched upon.
2024 MLD 502
MOHAMMAD ALI FARHAN HAMEED vs State
S. 498 ---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 406---Criminal breach of trust---Ad-interim pre-arrest bail, confirmation of---Allegation against the accused was that he usurped the amount of complainant while committing criminal breach of trust---Contents of FIR transpired that the alleged amount of Rs.1,78,80,000/- from 21.05.2020 to 3.12.2020 was given to the accused-petitioner, whereas, the crime report/FIR was got registered on 18.09.2021, after a delay of one year and fifteen days without explaining any sufficient reason, therefore, for the said reason, chances of petitioner's false implication with due deliberation after consultation could not be ruled out---From the facts and circumstances of the case, offence under S. 406, P.P.C was hardly attracted because there was no evidence on file that an amount of Rs.1,78,80,000/- was entrusted to the petitioner---As per narration of FIR, complainant handed over amount to the petitioner for the purchase of land for a property in her name but the petitioner neither purchased the land in the name of complainant nor returned her amount---Mere broken promise did not constitute the offence under S.406, P.P.C---Petitioner was appointed as Corporate Consultant, Training and Development in the company of complainant with monthly salary of Rs.900,000/- on 15.01.2018 and his service was confirmed on 18.06.2018---Allegedly, an amount of Rs.78,80,000/- was transferred in the account of petitioner through bank transaction as the same was paid as salary to the petitioner---Petitioner also annexed with present petition six salary slips through an application which manifested that Rs. 51,00,000/- was paid to the petitioner as salary---Complainant had not produced any proof of handing over the cash amount of Rs.10,000,000/- to the petitioner and investigation in that regard was also silent---Moreover, it was observed that matter between the parties was of family dispute because Nikah of complainant's brother was solemnized with daughter of the petitioner on 20.12.2020 and an amount of Rs. 51,00,000/- was fixed as Haq-ul-Mehr out of which, Rs. 50,00,000/- was deferred dower---Similarly in the column No.17 of NikahNama gold ornaments weighing 34 tolas valuing Rs.42,00,000/- were also given to the bride---As per FIR before the Nikah, from the amount of complainant's brother, a house was purchased and half portion of said house was transferred in the name of petitioner's daughter---Subsequently, dispute arose between the complainant's brother and petitioner's daughter and family suits were pending adjudication between them---Till the dispute between complainant's brother and petitioner's daughter, arose, the complainant had not tried to set the machinery of law into motion---Thus the complainant had apparently tingled a family dispute into criminal one which was not warranted by law---Petitioner was previous non-convict, he had already joined the investigation and according to the Investigating Officer, the investigation of the case was complete and reportedly there was no misuse of concession of pre-arrest bail, therefore, the petitioner had made out a case for confirmation of pre-arrest bail---Even otherwise, offence under S.406, P.P.C. did not fall within the prohibitory clause of S.497, Cr.P.C., and no useful purpose would be served by sending him behind the bars mere at the wish of the complainant till his release on post-arrest bail after few days---Petition was allowed and the ad-interim pre-arrest bail already granted to the petitioner was confirmed, in circumstances.
MOHAMMAD ALI FARHAN HAMEED vs State
2024 MLD 502
0 Comments