Ghulam Nazik vs State Ss — 2024 MLD 1484 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

Ghulam Nazik VS State Ss. 497 & 498---Bail---Observations of the Court---Scope---Observations made in a bail order are tentative in nature and should not influence the Trial Court in any manner. Citation Name: 2024 MLD 1484 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Ghulam Nazik VS State S. 498---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 406---Criminal breach of trust---Ad-interim pre-arrest bail, confirmation of---Further inquiry---As per story of prosecution, 5/6 years prior to registration of the case FIR, the petitioners obtained three cows and one buffalo valued at Rs. 5,50,000/- on share basis but later on, they misappropriated the said animals and refused to give the respective share of the complainant---Contents of FIR transpired that the alleged occurrence took place about 5/6 years ago, whereas the crime report/FIR was registered after considerable delay without explaining any sufficient reason, therefore, chances of petitioners' false implication with due deliberation after consultation could not be ruled out---From the facts and circumstances of the case, offence under S.406 P.P.C was hardly attracted because there was no evidence on file that the animals were obtained by the petitioners from the complainant on trust rather the complainant himself admitted in the FIR that the same was given to the petitioners for the purpose of obtaining his share---In the narration of FIR, it had been mentioned that the animals were given to the petitioners on the sole ground that the petitioners would give/return respective shares to the complainant after due period, for which, the complainant, after due time, demanded his share, but the same was allegedly not given to him---Mere broken promises or business terms do not constitute the offence under S.406, P.P.C---Petitioners were previous non-convict, they had already joined the investigation and according to the Investigating Officer, the investigation of the case was complete and reportedly there was no misuse of concession of pre-arrest bail---Petitioners had made out a case for confirmation of pre-arrest bail---Offence under S.406, P.P.C, did not fall within the prohibitory clause of S.497 Cr.P.C---No useful purpose would be served by sending the petitioners behind the bars at the wish of complainant for an indefinite period---Petition was allowed and the ad-interim pre-arrest bail already granted to the petitioners was confirmed, in circumstances.

Ghulam Nazik vs State Ss — 2024 MLD 1484 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2024 MLD