Usman Shafi vs State Ss — 2026 MLD 874 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.

Usman Shafi VS State Ss. 498 & 497(2)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.408---Criminal breach of trust by clerk / servant---Ad-interim pre-arrest bail, confirmation of---Essential ingredients ("entrustment", "dominion" etc.), absence of---Incriminating material against accused, deficiency of---Further inquiry---Accused, Executive Director (Business Development) at a mill, was accused of engaging fictitious agents to unlawfully receive commissions in their names and misappropriated amount, allegedly, constituting criminal breach of trust---Essential ingredients of the offence of criminal breach of trust, as defined under S.405 P.P.C, were prima facie missing in the present matter---There was an accusation of misappropriation of USD 748,850 by the petitioner being Executive Director (Business Development) under the pretext of commission payments through fictitious agents---Section 408 P.P.C specifically deals with criminal breach of trust committed by a clerk or servant, requiring that the accused, in such a capacity, be entrusted with property or exercise dominion over it, and subsequently misappropriated the same---For the offence to be established, both elements i.e. entrustment and dishonest misappropriation must co-exist---The word "entrustment" implies the handing over of property for a specific purpose without transferring ownership, whereas "dominion" denotes control or authority over the said property---However, in the instant case, there was neither a specific allegation nor any material on record to suggest that the complainant entrusted any property to the petitioner in his capacity as a clerk or servant, which the petitioner had misappropriated---In absence of said foundational requirement of entrustment, the applicability of S.408 P.P.C becomes primafacie doubtful at bail stage---During the course of investigation, the statements of three employees of mill (Manager Taxation, Office Manager and Executive Manager) were recorded under S.161, Cr.P.C.; said individuals alleged that payments were made to persons other than the legitimate customers of the company and attributed responsibility for the same to the petitioner, however, they did not furnish any account details, payment trails, or disclose the basis of their knowledge regarding alleged misappropriation---Furthermore, the petitioner held the position of Executive Director of Business Development, which, on the face of it, did not appear to be connected with the financial affairs of the complainant's company---One person was claimed to be an agent of the complainant's company who had deposited Rs.5,600,000/- in the bank accounts of the petitioner and his wife, allegedly, in lieu of commission, however, no statement of the said agent was recorded by the investigating officer to establish any nexus between the petitioner and the alleged misappropriation---There, admittedly, was nothing on the record specifically, from the deposit slips indicating that these deposits were made in the bank account as commission to the petitioner---Moreover, only photocopies of the deposit slips were provided by the Legal Manager of the complainant, which were taken into possession via recovery memo by the Investigating Officer (IO); said photocopies were neither verified from the concerned bank nor any bank official's statement was recorded to confirm their authenticity---No supporting material was collected by the IO to show that the petitioner received any commission through fictitious agents---However, the veracity of the photocopies of these deposit slips would be determined by the Trial court after recording of evidence---Moreover, admittedly, the petitioner and the complainant were real cousins while the petitioner's father was ashareholder in the company / mill where the alleged misappropriation was said to have occurred; in such circumstances, the dispute between the parties, prima facie, appeared to stem out of internal financial disagreements within the family---The prosecution's case against the petitioner primarily hinged on allegations regarding payments to purported parties and receiving commissions from the agents, the details of which were already available in the company's records and with the investigating agency---No material evidence or documents remained to be recovered, and there appeared to be no necessity for custodial interrogation---Accordingly, there was no risk of the petitioner tampering with evidence---Pre-arrest bail is an extraordinary relief and may be granted where the petitioner can show that the accusation had been made with mala fide intent, ulterior motives, or to cause humiliation and disgrace, and where irreparable harm may result from arrest---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---Even otherwise, the case against the petitioner fell within the purview of further inquiry as contemplated under the law---Pre-arrest bail may be granted not only on the basis of malafide or ulterior motive but also where the accusation necessitated further investigation---The guilt of the petitioner would be determined by the Trial court after recording of evidence---Ad-interim pre-arrest bail already granted to the petitioner was confirmed---Pre-arrest bail petition was allowed.

Usman Shafi vs State Ss — 2026 MLD 874 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2026 MLD