Case Details

Citation(s)
2013 SLG 523 2013 SLD 523 2013 PCRLJ 1145
Lahore High Court
Criminal Miscellaneous Nos. 123-B and 964-B of 2012, decided on 26th April, 2012
SARDAR TARIQ MASOOD AND ABDUL SAMI KHAN, JJ
Aasim Hafeez for Petitioner (in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 123-B of 2012). Iqbal Khurshed Mughal for Petitioner (in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 964-B of 2012). Azam Sultan Sehrwardi for the Complainant. Khurram Khan, D.PG. with Arif ASI

ATIQ NIAZI and anothers

VS

The STATE and another

Law: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)

Section: 498

Law: Pakistan Penal Code, 1860

Section: 406

(a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----S. 498---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 406---Criminal breach of trust---Ad interim pre-arrest bail, recalling of---Allegation against the accused (chief executive of the company) and co-accused (supervisor of the company) was that they had removed goods from the godown of the company---Contentions of the accused were that present case had been filed with mala fide intention and ulterior motives; that goods in question were removed by the directors of the company with the inclusion of the security guard; that it was not possible that such huge quantity of goods could be removed without the knowledge of the directors of the company; that accused was a previous non-convict; that accused had informed the bank regarding the removal of the goods but the bank authorities stopped him from registering a case, and that provisions of S.406, P.P.C. were not made out against the accused as the goods in question were not entrusted to him---Contentions of the co-accused were the same as that of the accused but he additionally contended that he being a supervisor only visited the godown after every fifteen (15) days to check whether the security guard was present on his duty or not, and that the directors of the company and bank authorities had joined hands with each other and removed the goods from the godown---Validity---Accused and co-accused were named in the F.I.R.---According to the agreement between the bank and the company, it was the responsibility of the accused and the co-accused to take care of the goods in question which were entrusted to them---Goods in question were under the custody of the accused and co-accused, when they were removed from the godown---Investigation officer found the accused and co-accused to be fully involved in the case and recovery was yet to be effected from both of them---Prima facie, the accused and co-accused were connected with the commission of the offence and were not entitled to the extraordinary concession of pre-arrest bail which was meant only to save innocent persons from undue harassment, humiliation and disgrace, while the accused and co-accused failed to fulfil such criteria for…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492