' FAZAL-E-MIRAN CHAUHAN, J.--- Petitioner Bilal Ahmad, is seeking pre-arrest bail in case F.I.R.
Offence under sections 406 and 420, P.P.C. Registered at Police Station, Fateh Sher, District Sahiwal for the allegations that the complainant paid Rs,3,00,000 to Ahmad Raza, co-accused of the petitioner, for the purpose of business, but later on, petitioner and co-accused usurped the said amount and flatly refused to return the same. Hence this case.
2. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the F.I.R. Does not disclose a case under sections 406 and 420, P.P.C. Against the petitioner, as the disputed money was never entrusted to the petitioner nor he had misappropriated the same. The complainant had given Rs,3,00,000 to Ahmad Raza co-accused and the petitioner has no concern with the same. Co-accused has been declared innocent by the police, hence, no case is made out against the petitioner. Further contends that there is no evidence on record that the complainant made a bargain with the petitioner. The offences alleged to have, been committed by the petitioner do not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. The petitioner is brother-in-law of Ahmad Raza co- accused and he has been wrongly involved in this case. Also contends that mala tide intention, ulterior motive and humiliation have been proved on record to falsely involve the petitioner in this false case, hence, he deserves the concession of pre-arrest bail.
3. On the contrary, learned counsel for the complainant assisted by learned State counsel opposed the bail petition.
4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, it manifests that the amount was given by the complainant to co-accused Ahmad Raza for a joint venture for business with the petitioner. Said Ahmad Raza has been declared innocent by the police. Since, the money was not entrusted to the petitioner, question of misappropriation by the petitioner does not arise. In these circumstances, declaring the petitioner to be guilty of the offence by the police reflects the mala tides. The offences alleged to have been committed by the petitioner do not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C.
5. In view, of the above discussion, this petition is accepted and ad interim pre-arrest bail already granted to the petitioner is hereby confirmed subject to his furnishing fresh bail bonds in the sum of Rs,2,00,000 (Rupees two lac only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.