2019 PLP 346 (MLD)
MUHAMMAD IMRAN — Petitioner Versus The STATE and another — Respondents
| Citation | 2019 PLP 346 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD IMRAN — Petitioner Versus The STATE and another — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2019 PLP 346 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2019 PLP 346 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2019 PLP 346 (MLD) (MUHAMMAD IMRAN — Petitioner Versus The STATE and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Naveed Inayat Malik for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 498
Penal Code (XLV of 1860 ), S. 406
Ad-interim pre-arrest bail, confirmation of
Trust (Amanat)
Scope
Detail of money allegedly entrusted was not mentioned in the FIR
Effect
Complainant, who had friendly relations with the petitioner, allegedly handed over Rs. 900,000/- to him (petitioner) as trust
Petitioner/accused contended that ingredients of criminal breach of trust were not attracted
Complainant contended that his amount was yet to be recovered from the petitioner
Held, question was when there were so many Banks in the city, then why the complainant handed over the Rs. 900,000/- to the petitioner for keeping the said amount as trust with him
Word 'amanat' (trust) had malafidely been mentioned by the complainant in the FIR, prima facie, in order to make the same a cognizable offence punishable under S.406, P.P.C.
Mere mentioning the word 'amanat'(trust), in the contents of FIR would not attract the provisions of S.405, P.P.C., punishable under S.406, P.P.C., when otherwise ingredients of the said offence were not attracted from the contents of FIR
No specific denomination, identification, marks or number of the currency notes, which were handed over by the complainant to the petitioner, had been mentioned in the FIR, therefore, bail petition could not be dismissed merely on the ground of possible recovery of the amount of the complainant from the petitioner
Possibility of mala fide involvement of the petitioner in the present case by the complainant due to money dispute, could not be ruled out at bail stage
Ad-interim pre-arrest bail already granted to the petitioner was confirmed, in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
MALIK SHAHZAD AHMAD KHAN, J.
The petitioner Muhammad Imran through the instant petition seeks pre-arrest bail in case FIR No. 551 dated 18.05.2018 registered at Police Station Ichra District Lahore offence under Section 406 of P.P.C.
2. Arguments heard. Record perused.
3. As per brief allegations leveled in the FIR, the complainant had friendly relationship with the petitioner. On 28.02.2018 at 04:00 p.m., the complainant handed over an amount of Rs.900,000/- as trust to the petitioner in presence of the witnesses, namely, Ahsan Mudassar and Khadim and later on, when he (complainant) demanded the abovementioned amount, the petitioner refused to return the same hence, the abovementioned FIR. It is not understandable that when there are so many banks in the city of Lahore then why the complainant handed over the amount of Rs.900,000/- to the petitioner for keeping the said amount as trust with him. Prima facie, it appears that the word 'amanat' (trust) has malafidely been mentioned by the complainant in the FIR in order to make it a cognizable offence punishable under Section 406 of P.P.C. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of Miraj Khan v. Gul Ahmed and 3 others (2000 SCMR 122), has held that by merely mentioning the word 'amanat' (trust), in the contents of the FIR would not attract the provisions of Section 405 of P.P.C. punishable under Section 406 of P.P.C., when otherwise ingredients of the said offence are not attracted from the contents of the FIR. No specific denomination, identification marks or number of the currency notes, which were handed over by the complainant to the petitioner, have been mentioned in the FIR therefore, this petition cannot be dismissed merely on the ground of possible recovery of the amount of the complainant from the petitioner. Reliance in this respect may be placed on the case of "Shahid Imran v. The State and others" (2011 SCMR 1614). Possibility of mala fide involvement of the petitioner in this case by the complainant due to money dispute between the parties cannot be ruled out at this stage therefore, this petition is allowed and interim pre-arrest bail already granted to the petitioner is confirmed subject to his furnishing the bail bonds in the sum of Rs.100,000/- (Rupees one hundred thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court. MQ/M-153/L Bail granted.