Find a Lawyer

Criminal Miscellaneous No. 1733/B of 1985, decided on 3rd September, 1985.

‑‑‑S. 497‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860) S. 406/408‑‑Bail‑‑Case against accused registered for committing non‑bailable offence‑‑Accused failing to convince that reasonable grounds did not exist to believe that he had committed offence‑‑Accused absconded after commission of offence and was arrested after ten months‑‑Conduct of accused, held, corroborated version of complainant‑‑Bail refused.

M. Aslam Riaz for Petitioner.

Sh. Jamal Din for the State.

Vide F.I.R. No. 182, dated 25‑6‑1984 registered at Police Station Nishatabad, Faisalabad, a case under sections 406 and 408, P.P.C. was registered against the petitioner. It was alleged in the F.I.R., that the petitioner in his capacity as servant of the complainant was entrusted with Rs.60,251 and was sent to a Bank for getting a draft prepared for the said amount, but the petitioner disappeared with the said amount and committed criminal breach of trust. The complainant runs the petrol pump and the petitioner was an employee and the amount was entrusted to him so that the draft for the said amount is deposited for the purchase of oil for the petrol pump.

2. The petitioner absconded and was arrested on 19th of May, 1985. His bail application was rejected by the learned Magistrate and the learned Sessions Judge, Faisalabad.

3. In support of this petition, it is contended that the petitioner has been falsely implicated, and the sale register of the petrol pump indicates that Rs.60,251 could not have been entrusted to the petitioner.

4. It was further contended by the learned counsel that the case does not fall within the prohibitory clause under section 497, Cr.P.C. therefore, the petitioner was entitled to the grant of bail. The offences under section 406/408, P.P.C. are non‑bailable and the learned counsel has failed to convince me, that reasonable grounds do not exist to believe, that the petitioner has committed the offence. In this view of the matter, I am not inclined to admit the petitioner to bail. The petitioner had absconded after the commission of offence and was arrested after 10 months. Such conduct corroborates the version of the complainant. However, I direct the Investigating Officer to submit the challan, if it has not so far been submitted. I would further direct the Court to be entrusted with the case for trial to proceed with the trial expeditiously. With these observation, this petition is dismissed.

M.Y.H./M‑126/L Bail refused.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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