1. ' Apprehending his arrest at the hands of police, through the instant petition, the petitioner seeks his pre-arrest hail in case FIR No, 16, dated 07.01.2017, offence under Section 406, PPC. registered with Police Station, B-Division, Kasur.
2. 2.Prosecution story, in brief, as per contents of the crime report is that the petitioner purchased embroidery material from the complainant on different occasions to the tune of Rs,10,07,5781-.
3. When the complainant demanded the said amount, the petitioner stated that the amount in question is lying with him as Amanat', but subsequently he refused to pay the same.
4. 3.Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been roped in the instant case by the complainant against the actual facts and circumstances with mala fides. It is argued that no specific date and time of the alleged occurrence has been mentioned in the crime report. From the contents of the crime report, learned counsel submits that the offence alleged against the petitioner is not made out. Learned counsel submits that dispute between the parties is of civil nature, but the same has been culminated into criminal liability by the complainant. It is argued that the offence alleged against the petitioner does not attract the prohibition contained in Section 497(1T, Cr.P.C. In such circumstances, it is submitted that the petitioner has made out a good case for the grant of relief prayed for by means of instant petition.
5. 4.Contrarily, learned Deputy Prosecutor General assisted by learned counsel for the complainant has opposed this petition. It is argued that the petitioner is named in the crime report with specific allegation. It is contended that it is a pre-arrest bail and the same can be granted sparingly.
6. 5.Arguments heard. Record available on file perused.
7. 6.There is no denial to this fact that the petitioner is named in the FIR, but this Court has to see from the facts, and circumstances whether case against the petitioner to the extent of grant of relief prayed for is made out or not. No specific date and time of occurrence has been mentioned in the crime report. Bare-reading of the crime report prima facie reflects that the dispute between the parties is of civil nature. Furthermore, in view of dictum of law laid clown by the august Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of "Shahid Imran vs. The State, etc. (2011 PSC {Crl.} 883) as well as by this Court in the case of "Ulfat versus State & another" PLJ 2012 Cr.C. (Lahore) 128), prima facie provisions 'of offence under Sections 405, PPC are not attracted in the instant case and application of provision of offence under Section 406, PPC, would be resolved by the learned trial Court after recording of prosecution evidence. The offence alleged against the petitioner does not attract the prohibition contained in Section 497(1), Cr.P.C. It is a settled principle of law that the Court can even look into and evaluate the mala fides from the facts and circumstances of the case, which apparently is oozing in this case from the facts and circumstances discussed above. Respectful reliance in this regard is placed on the ratio decided of august Supreme Court of Pakistan in the cases of Ajmal Khan vs. Liaqat Hayat and another (PLD 1998 SC 97) and Syed Muhammad Firdaus and others vs. The State (2005 SCMR 784). Moreover, keeping in view the dictum of law laid down by the august Supreme Court of Pakistan in a reported case Meeran Bux vs. The State & another (PLD 1989 Supreme Court 347), the Court while deciding the pre-arrest bail can touch upon the merits of the case. The culpability of the petitioner would be determined by the learned trial Court during trial after recording of prosecution evidence.
7. For the foregoing facts and circumstances, this Court is persuaded to accept this petition.
8. Resultantly by allowing this petition, ad-interim bail already granted to, the petitioner in terms of order dated 01.02.2017 and is hereby confirmed subject to his furnishing fresh bail bonds in the sum of Rs, 1,00,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.