' Heard.
' As a ressult of the case bearing F.I.R. No, 159 registered with Police Station City Muridke, District Sheikhupura, on 24-5-2000, Karamat Ali petitioner stands involved in the allegation that he received an amount of Rs,55,000 from the complainant for recording the cross-version in a criminal case and when the amount was demanded back he advanced threats to involve the husband of the complainant in another case. So, on the application submitted by Gulzar Bibi, the above said case was registered.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the offences under sections 406, 420 and 506, P.P.C. Do not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C., that the offences under sections 406 and 506, P.P.C. May be non-bailable but refusal of bail is an exception and that the petitioner is behind the bars and no more required by the police for any further investigation, therefore, it is a fit case for bail.
' Which have been opposed by the learned State Counsel on this ground that the conduct of the petitioner in the past during the disposal of the petitioner for bail was obnoxious, therefore, it is not a fit case for bail, however, he agreed on suspicion with regard to application of section 406, P.P.C.
In this case.
3. The point for examination is that as to whether in the light of facts and circumstances of this case as discussed above, the provisions of section 406, P.P.C. Are attracted or not. It is obvious that the facts of this case reflect on an illegal contract in between the complainant and the petitioner because heavy amount was to be transferred to the concerned police officer for having cross- version recorded. In other words this was an amount of illegal gratification. Whereas the provisions of section 405, P.P.C. Relating to criminal breach of trust including the words in any manner revolves around the legal contract otherwise. It is quite astonishing that in case of an illegal contract the local police has applied the provision of section 406, P.P.C.
4. Similarly the point for examination is that if a threat is to involve in false case then as to whether the provisions of section 506, P.P.C. Can be invoked or not. The provisions of section 503, P.P.C.
Relating to Criminal Intimidation speak about an injury to person, reputation or property. The threat to involve in a false case is really an injury to a person, therefore, such-like threat amounts to criminal intimidation, but it would attract part First of section 506, P.P.C. For the purpose of punishment which is up to 2 years or with fine or with both.
5. Now as far as the application of section 420, P.P.C. In such-like case is concerned, it attracts because there is an allegation of inducing another person for delivery of property dishonestly, to receive the same anti to misappropriate the same but the offence under section 420, P.P.C., what to speak of falling in the prohibitory clause, is bailable as per Schedule of Criminal Procedure Code, meaning thereby the offence attracted in this case do not fall in the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. The petitioner is no more required by the police for any further investigation, his conduct in the past has been buried when he was arrested in this case after dismissal of his petition for bail after arrest vide orders dated 24-10-2001.
6. In view of the above discussion, Karamat Ali petitioner is admitted to bail in the sum of Rs, 50,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.