Case Details

Citation(s)
2026 SLG 385 2026 SLD 385 = 2026 MLD 187
Lahore High Court
Crl. Misc. No. 7172-B of 2025, decided on 10th March, 2025.
Presented By: Before Tanveer Ahmad Sheikh, J
Muhammad Akmal Khan for Petitioners. Khizr Hayat Kamboh for the Complainant. Ghulam Abbas, Deputy Prosecutor General, Tahir Khursheed, ASI with record for the State.

PHAPHI alias Fatima and another---Petitioners

VERSUS

The STATE and another---Respondents

Law: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)

Section: 498

Law: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)

Section: 406,420

(a)    Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----S. 498---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 406 & 420---Criminal breach of trust, cheating---Pre-arrest bail, confirmation of---Mala fide on the part of complainant---Allegations against the petitioners were that they misappropriated the golden rings and an amount of Rs. 1,90,000/- on the pretext of marriage--According to FIR complainant and his brother got married with the petitioners (sisters) and father of the complainant gave two golden rings to them and Rs.190,000/- for arrangement of marriage ceremony---Bare contents of the FIR did not suggest that entrustment of any property was made to the petitioners, which they misappropriated---Two golden rings and sum of Rs.190,000/- given by father of complainant to petitioners on the eve of their marriage with complainant and his brother could only be considered and treated as gift, as such dispute between the parties happened to be purely of family nature--Complainant claimed that petitioners/accused failed to point out any mala fide or ulterior motive on his part as well as police, which were sine qua non for the grant of pre-arrest bail and those grounds were very much lacking in the present case---However, mala fide being a state of mind could not always be proved by direct evidence---In most of the cases it had always to be inferred from the facts and circumstances of the case---Both the petitioners were previous non-convicts and they were females, as such social norms of our society did not permit to hand them over into the custody of police, lest the same should put their modesty at stake---Even otherwise, it was not likely to serve any purpose, as nothing had to be recovered at the instance or from the possession of petitioners---Weak and palpable circumstances of the case in hand were sufficient to lead the Court to draw an inference of mal afide on the part of prosecution/ complainant--Petitioners would suffer irreparable loss, in case their arrest was made by police, as such it was appropriate to exercise discretion in favour of petitioners---In such circumstances, the petitioners had succeeded in making out a good case for the grant of…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register