2007 PLP 1551 (MLD)

IJAZ ARMED CHAUDHRY, J.

Through this application wider section 498 Cr.P.C. Mahboob Zafar Butt petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No. 125 dated 10-4-2007 registered under section 409 P.P.C. at Police Station Phalia District Mandi Baha-ud-Din on the statement of Majid Micheal.

2. The brief allegation in the F.I.R. is that the complainant had obtained on lease Toyota Corolla 2-D bearing Registration No. 1WJ-7387 from Faysal Bank Limited, New Garden Town, Lahore and the complainant had already paid an amount of Rs.6,00,000 to the said Bank. However the vehicle was taken into possession by the police of Police Station Phalia under section 550 Cr.P.C. and thereafter the petitioner obtained the said vehicle on superdari from the Court on 2-2-2007 which order was subsequently cancelled but the Superdari/petitioner failed to produce the said car before the Court in spite of repeated direction issued iii this regard and thus committed criminal breach of trust.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contents that the petitioner is employee of the Bank and had no personal interest in keeping the vehicle in possession of the Bank that the vehicle was handed over to the petitioner-Bank on 13-2-2007 finally by the learned Magistrate and the order for cancellation of superdari by the same Court was illegal that the complainant was the lessee who in violation of the terms and conditions of lease had sold the vehicle to one Irfan Rashid that the vehicle has already been returned to the court on 23-5-2007; that no offence is made out against the petitioner who is just employee of the Bank; that no recovery is to be effected from the petitioner, who is innocent and may be allowed pre-arrest bail as sending him to jail will spoil the future career of the petitioner, who is not the criminal bent of mind.

4. Learned counsel for the complainant on the other hand assisted by the learned Addl. Prosecutor General has opposed this application on the ground that the vehicle in question had been obtained on superdari by the petitioner through concealment of facts, which order was rightly cancelled and the petitioner was directed to had over the vehicle to the Court vide order dated 2-4-2007 which was not complied with by the' petitioner and on 10-4-2007 final order was passed through which the superdari order passed in favour of the petitioner was cancelled and thus he is .guilty of criminal breach of trust and the offence falls within the prohibitory clause of section 497 Cr.P.C.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the documents attached with this application. The petitioner admittedly had obtained the vehicle in question on superdari on 13-1-2007 which was confirmed in his favour on 13-2-2007. Then an application was moved by the complainant for cancellation of the superdari and through the interim order, dated 2-4-2007 passed by the learned Civil Judge the petitioner was directed to deposit the vehicle in the Court but the petitioner, failed to deposit the same till 10-4-2007. The contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the same Court could not cancel the order of superdari, which was confirmed in favour of the petitioner has already been repelled by this Court vide order, dated 25-4-2007 passed in Writ Petition No. 3866 of 2007 filed by the petitioner. The relevant portion is reproduced as under:-- "I am not in agreement with the learned counsel for the petitioner that the order once passed in favour of Bank the superdari of the car in question could not be reviewed/cancelled as on the face of the record, the same had been obtained at the back of respondent No.3 by concealment of the fact that he was lease holder of the said vehicle and he was necessary party to be impleaded in the said application for giving him opportunity of hearing before passing of any order on the said application. Even till today no record has been produced before the Court that respondent/lease-holder had lost the right to retain the custody of the vehicle anal the Bank was entitled to take its possession. "

6. Even then the petitioner did not restore the custody of the vehicle to the Court immediately thereafter and mere return of the same on 23-5-2007 two days before applying for pre-arrest bail in this Court on 25-5-2007 does not exonerate the petitioner .from the commission of alleged occurrence when firstly the order for its return was passed on 28-3-2007 with the direction that the car will remain in the custody of the Court and the petitioner sought time to produce the car in the Court. The case was adjourned for 2-4-2007. On the subsequent dates i.e. 2-4-2007, 7-4-2007 and 10-4-2007 the petitioner absented from the Court and never returned the car. Thus the petitioner had violated the terms and conditions of superdari order according to which he was bound to produce the car in the Court whenever required by it. Bail before arrest is meant to protect the innocent citizens, if they are found to have been involved in a criminal case with mala fide intention, but in the present case the petitioner appears to have intentionally failed to produce the car in question in the Court in spite of directions issued by the Court in his presence and thus the offence is made out against the petitioner. No ground exists for the grant of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner and this application being devoid of any merit is dismissed. H.B.T./M-360/L Bail refused.