2022 PLP 358 (MLD)

AMJAD ALI SAHITO, J.

Through this Bail Application, the applicant/accused seeks pre-arrest bail in Crime No.232/2020 registered under section 408, P.P.C. at Police Station Tipu Sultan, Karachi, after his bail plea has been declined by learned XIth Additional District and Sessions Judge, Karachi South vide order dated 22.09.2020.

2. The details and particulars of the FIR are already available in the bail application and FIR, same could be gathered from the copy of FIR attached with such application, hence, needs not to reproduce the same hereunder.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant has mainly contended that applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case; that the applicant has resigned from his service and subsequently, he was informed through email to return the car, mobile phone and laptop of the company; that the applicant has no concern with the alleged offence as payment was made by the company in his account in respect of commission; that before registration of the FIR, the applicant moved an application to SSP East on involving him in a fake case by the complainant and based on such application, the FIR was registered by the complainant; that both the parties have filed Civil Suits, which are pending before the competent Court(s) and it is yet to be determined who made the criminal breach of trust; that at the most, the offence falls under section 420, P.P.C. which is bailable but the complainant involved him in Section

408. P.P.C. He has lastly prayed for confirmation of pre-arrest bail. In support of his contention, he has relied upon the cases of (1) Umar Khubaib v. The State and 2 others (2016 PCr.LJ 535), (2) Shahid Imran v. The State and others (2011 SCMR 1614), (3) Arif Barlas v. The State (2006 PCr.LJ 202), (4) Muhammad Inam Ali v. The State and another (2011 PCr.LJ 323) and (5) Muhammad Gulzar v. The State (2005 YLR 1645).

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the complainant as well as learned DPG have vehemently opposed for confirmation of bail on the ground that as per Voucher(s), the amount had to pay in the account of Messrs Mansoor Chemical but the applicant deposited the said amount in his account; that no mala fide on the part of the complainant or investigating officer has been pleaded by the applicant; that the applicant has misappropriated huge amount of Rs.62,78,699/-, therefore, he is not entitled to confirmation of bail. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the complainant has relied upon the case of (1) Gulshan Ali Solangi and others v. The State (2020 SCMR 249) and (2) Muhammad Siddique v. Imtiaz Begum and 2 others (sic).

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the material available on record. Admittedly, the applicant was an employee of Messrs Seagull Shipping and Logistic (Pvt.) Limited and has transferred amount of Rs.62,78,699/- in his account which was the refund of Mansoor Chemical Company but the applicant had not paid the said amount to the company. From the perusal of the documents/vouchers, it is established that the above-alleged amount was transferred by the applicant for the period from 2017 to May 2020, hence the ingredients of section 408, P.P.C. are very much applicable in this case.

6. The concession of pre-arrest bail cannot be allowed to an accused person unless the Court feels satisfied with the seriousness of the accused person's assertion regarding his intended arrest being actuated by mala fide on the part of the complainant party or the local police but not a word about this crucial aspect of the matter is found as no mala fide is made on the part of the complainant to believe that the applicant/accused has been implicated in this case falsely. In this context, the reliance is placed to the case of 'Rana Abdul Khaliq v. The State and others' [2019 SCMR 1129]. Further, in addition to the above, I would like to mention that grant of pre-arrest bail is an extraordinary remedy in criminal jurisdiction; it is a diversion of the usual course of law, arrest in cognizable cases; protection to the innocent being hounded on trump up charges through abuse of process of law, therefore, an applicant seeking judicial protection is required to reasonably demonstrate that intended arrest is calculated to humiliate him with taints of mala fide, it is not a substitute for post-arrest bail in every run of the mill criminal case as it seriously hampers the course of the investigation.

7. Learned counsel for the applicant has failed to point out any ill-will enmity or mala fide on the part of the complainant or investigating officer to believe that he has been falsely implicated in this case. At the bail stage, only a tentative assessment is to be made and deeper appreciation is not permissible.

8. Because of the above, learned counsel for the applicant has failed to bring a case of the applicant/accused for further inquiry as envisaged under subsection (2) of section, 497, Cr.P.C. Consequently, the instant bail application is dismissed and the interim pre-arrest bail granted by this Court to the applicant/accused vide order dated 24.09.2020 is hereby recalled.

9. Needless to mention here that the observations made hereinabove are tentative and would not influence the learned trial Court while deciding the case of the applicants on merits. MQ/W-8/Sindh Bail recalled.