Danish Riaz Dar vs State Ss — 2025 MLD 1374 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.

Danish Riaz Dar VS State Ss. 497 & 498---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 408---Pre-arrest bail, confirmation of---Allegations against the petitioner/accused were that he committed criminal breach of trust by misappropriating a large sum of collected installments---Perusal of the crime report revealed that no details of the customers from whom the installments were allegedly received by the petitioner had been provided, nor had any specific date, time, or place of the alleged entrustment of the amount been mentioned in the FIR---First condition under S.405 ,P.P.C., involved three key elements, entrustment, dominion, and property---Entrustment refers to the transfer of possession for a specific purpose without conferring ownership---Dominion implied control or authority over the property---Term property was used broadly and should not be confined to movable assets alone---However, the presence of "entrustment" and "dominion" must be assessed in the context of the relationship between the parties and the nature of the property allegedly misappropriated---Notably, a breach of trust could only occur if the property belonged to someone other than the accused---Ingredients necessary to constitute an offence under S.408, P.P.C., were not reflected in the contents of the crime report---Master-servant relationship between the complainant and the petitioner and the question of whether any entrustment of property actually took place, were factual issues that could only be determined after recording of evidence during the trial---Offence under S.408, P.P.C., carried a maximum punishment of seven years, which did not fall within the prohibitory clause of S.497 Cr.P.C.---Prima facie, it appeared that rather than pursuing a civil proceedings for rendition of accounts, the complainant had sought to give a criminal colour to what essentially seemed to be a civil and contractual dispute---Petitioner had already joined the investigation---Possibility that the complainant's allegation was tainted with mala fide intent and ulterior-motive could not be ruled out---Pre-arrest bail is an extraordinary relief and may be granted where the petitioner shows that the accusation has been made with mala fide intent, ulterior motives or to cause humiliation and disgrace and where irreparable harm may have resulted from arrest---In the present case, considering the nature of allegations, the absence of clear evidence of entrustment, lack of employment details and the apparent civil nature of the dispute, the petitioner had successfully made a prima facie case of mala fide on the part of the complainant---Considering the nature of the offence and the facts and circumstances of the case, denial of pre-arrest bail would not serve the ends of justice and would run contrary to the intent and spirit of the law---Not the object of the law to unnecessarily retrain the liberty of a person where no useful purpose will be served by his arrest and detention---Based on a tentative assessment of the material presently available on record, the case against the petitioner also fell within the purview of further inquiry as contemplated under the law---Pre-arrest bail may be granted not only on the basis of mala fide or ulterior motives, but also where the accusation necessitates further investigation---Ad-interim pre-arrest bail already granted to the petitioner was confirmed, in circumstances.

Danish Riaz Dar vs State Ss — 2025 MLD 1374 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 MLD