Find a Lawyer

Criminal Miscellaneous No.205-B of 1984, decided on 27th March, 1984.

---S. 498--Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 406 & 420--Bail--Application basically made for prosecution of accused under S. 420, P.P.C, wherein ingredients of S. 406, P.P.C. not made out--Section 406, P.P.C. has been added mala fide in order to arrest and handcuff accused--Prima facie accused not committing any non-bailable offence thus it was not proper to make him a shuttlecock--Ball granted.

Moin-ud-Din Chaudhary for Petitioner.

Akhtar Masood assisted by Syed Muhammad Abbas Qureshi for the State.

This is an application for pre-arrest bail on behalf of Masood Ahmad Dogar, petitioner in a case under section 406/420, P.P.C. registered at P.S. Old Kotwali, Multan vide F.I.R. No. 724, dated 15-12-1983.

2. The prosecution case is that through misrepresentation, the petitioner obtained Rs.2,46,415 from Muhammad Sadiq complainant and despite repeated' demands he did not return the amount.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a respectable Advocate; that he has been falsely involved at the instance of his enemies in order to damage his reputation; that the allegations levelled in the complaint, accepted at its face value no non-bailable offence is made out.

On the other hand, the learned counsel for the State assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant have opposed the plea for bail before arrest of the petitioner on the grounds that the petitioner has directly approached the High Court and that the petitioner by deceiving the complainant had fraudulently obtained a huge amount valuing Rs.2,46,415.

4. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties with care. I find that basic application dated 21-2-1991 was made for the prosecution of the petitioner under section 420, P.P.C. In that application it was alleged that the petitioner had received Rs.2,46,415 from the petitioner through misrepresentation; that in his statement recorded under section 161, Cr.P.C., the complainant stated that by deceiving him, the petitioner had induced him to deliver the aforesaid amount .and that from the first application moved by him as well as from his statement recorded under section 161, Cr.P.C., the ingredients of section 406, P.P.C. i.e. entrustment and misappropriation are not made out. In these circumstances I am convinced that since offence under section 420, P.P.C. is a bailable offence, therefore, section 406, P.P.C has been added mala fide in order to arrest and handcuff the petitioner. Since this application was admitted to regular hearing by my learned brother on 22-2-1984 and prima facie, the petitioner has not committed any non-bailable offence, therefore, it would not be proper to make him a shuttlecock.

5. For what has been stated above, the pre-arrest bail already granted to the petitioner is, hereby confirmed.

M.Y.H. Interim anticipatory bail confirmed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.