MUHAMMAD AMJAD NAEEM vs State S — 2025 SCMR 1130 SUPREME-COURT

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

MUHAMMAD AMJAD NAEEM VS State S. 497---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 406---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 185(3)---Criminal breach of trust---Bail, grant of---Further inquiry, case of---Petitioner/accused was aggrieved of not being granted post-arrest bail by High Court---Allegation against the petitioner was that he had misappropriated vehicles of the complainant---Term 'entrustment' was used in a broad sense under Section 405 P.P.C and therefore, it encompassed a wide variety of contexts in which a property was handed over by an owner to a recipient person as trust (amanat)---An entrustment could arise in any situation wherein property had been entrusted in the manner leading to the creation of a fiduciary relationship between the giver and recipient of the entrusted property---Mere failure to pay profits, or a breach of promise, agreement or contract in the absence of clear entrustment of property, do not attract criminal breach of trust---Contents of the FIR clearly stated that all the vehicles in question were given by the complainant to the petitioner in pursuance of successive business transactions---Complainant not only settled the price of the vehicles with the petitioner but also received partial payments in lieu of the said transactions---In such eventuality, it was quite clear that there was no entrustment of the vehicles as trust (amanat) to the petitioner by the complainant---In absence of any such entrustment, offence under Section 405 P.P.C, was not made out and resultantly, Section 406 P.P.C was not applicable in the present case---Contention of the complainant that the FIR explicitly stated the vehicles were given as a trust (amanat) was of no avail---Mere mentioning of the word 'trust' in the FIR did not per se establish criminal breach of trust, and the said offence could only be made out when the requisite elements of the offence stood fulfilled---View taken by the High Court in the impugned order that the petitioner could not be granted bail because he was nominated in three other FIRs was misplaced, because only previous conviction could furnish a ground for refusal of bail---None of the vehicles in question had been recovered from the petitioner---Complainant lodged FIR after a considerable delay of five months, without any explanation---Due to such reasons, case of petitioner also called for further inquiry, falling under subsection (2) of Section 497 Cr.P.C., thus the petitioner was also entitled for bail after-arrest on such ground---Offences did not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497(1) Cr.P.C., and in such cases, bail must be granted as a rule and refused only in exceptional circumstances---Petition for bail was allowed in circumstances.

MUHAMMAD AMJAD NAEEM vs State S — 2025 SCMR 1130 SUPREME-COURT

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 SCMR