Summary: (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)---- ----Ss. 405 & 406---Criminal breach of trust---Ingredients---Property transaction---Mortgage agreement---Mere use of word “Amanat” in FIR---Effect---Complainant alleged that petitioner, being property dealer, showed him a house for mortgage owned by co-accused and, along with co-accused, received Rs.700,000 as advance out of total mortgage amount of Rs.1,200,000, but neither delivered possession nor returned amount---Supreme Court held that amount was paid in connection with a property/mortgage deal and a written agreement of mortgage had also been executed between parties---Dispute, at most, related to specific performance of mortgage agreement or recovery of amount and was of civil nature---Ingredients of S.405, PPC punishable under S.406, PPC were not attracted because neither any trust was created nor was it specified in what manner such trust was to be discharged---Mere mention of word “Amanat” in FIR would not attract S.406, PPC if ingredients of offence were otherwise absent. Cited Cases: • Miraj Khan v. Gul Ahmad and 03 others 2000 SCMR 122 • Muhammad Ali and another v. Assistant Commissioner, Narowal and another 1987 SCMR 795 • Shaukat Ali Sagar v. Station House Officer, Police Station Batala Colony, Faisalabad and 5 others 2006 PCrLJ 1900 • Abdul Razzaq v. The State 1977 PCrLJ 52 • Umair Aslam v. Station House Officer and 7 others 2014 PCrLJ 1305 (b) Criminal proceedings---- ----Civil dispute converted into criminal offence---Abuse of process---Property/mortgage agreement---Complainant had paid Rs.700,000 as advance under written mortgage agreement while Rs.500,000 remained outstanding---Parties disputed which side failed to perform its obligations under agreement---Supreme Court held that proper forum for determination of such dispute was civil Court, where it could be decided which party failed to specifically perform his part of agreement---Machinery of criminal law had been mala fidely set into motion to blackmail and pressurize petitioner and co-accused by converting civil dispute into criminal offence---Such criminal proceedings amounted to abuse of process of law. (c) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)---- ----S. 406---Contractual liability---Pledged property / commercial transaction / property deal---Criminal breach of trust not made out---Where dispute arises from contractual liability or performance of agreement, criminal proceedings under S.406, PPC are not attracted merely because money or property was delivered under transaction---In analogous cases relating to pledged jewellery, cinema canteen contract, and property sale transaction, FIRs under Ss.406/420, PPC were quashed because disputes were contractual/civil in nature and proper remedy lay before civil Court---Same principle applied to mortgage/property deal between parties in present case. Cited Cases: • Abdul Razzaq v. The State 1977 PCrLJ 52 • Muhammad Ali and another v. Assistant Commissioner, Narowal and another 1987 SCMR 795 • Umair Aslam v. Station House Officer and 7 others 2014 PCrLJ 1305 (d) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---- ----S. 249-A---Application before Trial Court---Not mandatory where no probability of conviction---Quashment of FIR---State contended that petitioner should first approach Trial Court through application under S.249-A, Cr.P.C.---Supreme Court held that where facts show no probability of conviction, directing accused to first approach Trial Court under S.249-A, Cr.P.C. would itself amount to sheer abuse of process of law and Court---FIR could be quashed in such circumstances without requiring accused to exhaust remedy under S.249-A, Cr.P.C. Cited Case: • Miraj Khan v. Gul Ahmad and 03 others 2000 SCMR 122 (e) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---- ----S. 561-A---Quashment of FIR---Civil nature of dispute---Scope---Where allegations in FIR, even if accepted, disclosed only a civil dispute regarding recovery of amount or specific performance of agreement and no ingredients of criminal breach of trust were made out, continuation of criminal proceedings would be abuse of process---In such circumstances, High Court’s inherent power to quash FIR under S.561-A, Cr.P.C. could be invoked, and Supreme Court could approve/undertake quashment to prevent misuse of criminal process. (f) Constitution of Pakistan---- ----Art. 187---Complete justice---Petition seeking pre-arrest bail converted into appeal for quashment of FIR---Petitioner had approached Supreme Court for pre-arrest bail, but upon examination of record Supreme Court found that no criminal offence was made out against accused---There was no bar in converting petition into proceedings for quashment of FIR where continuation of criminal case would be abuse of process---Supreme Court exercised power under Art.187 of Constitution to do complete justice, converted petition into appeal, allowed same and quashed FIR. Cited Case: • The State through D.G., ANF Rawalpindi v. Muhammad Saleem Khan 2011 SCMR 863 (g) Criminal law---- ----Property dealer---Role of intermediary---Criminal liability under S.406, PPC---Petitioner was property dealer who introduced complainant to owner of house for mortgage transaction---There was no allegation that co-accused was not owner of house or that transaction was fake from inception---Written mortgage agreement existed between parties---Dispute regarding non-delivery of possession/non-return of advance was to be resolved through civil remedies and did not constitute criminal breach of trust against petitioner merely because he participated in property deal. Disposition: Criminal Petition No.10-L of 2026 was converted into appeal and allowed; order dated 06.01.2026 passed by Lahore High Court and order dated 09.12.2025 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore were set aside; FIR No.3299 dated 17.10.2025 registered under S.406, PPC at Police Station Islampura, District Lahore was quashed.

Summary: (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----S.498---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.406---Ad-interim pre-arrest bail, confirmation of----Criminal breach of trust---Inordinate delay in lodging of FIR---Dispute between the parties to be determined by Trial Court---In a pre-arrest bail, only a tentative assessment of the evidentiary material produced before the Court is to be made at bail stage---Based on a tentative assessment of the record, it evinced that there was an inordinate delay in lodging of FIR---Such delay shattered the sanctity of the crime report and reflected that the same was consumed in fabricating, deliberating, consulting and concocting a false story---The question of constituting the offence of criminal breach of trust under S.406, P.P.C, in the light of the dispute, would be determined by the Trial Court after recording the evidence---Ad-interim pre-arrest bail already granted to the petitioner was confirmed---Bail petition was allowed, in circumstances. Aamir Bashir and another v. The State and others 2017 SCMR 2060; Khalid Javed Gillan v. The State PLD 1978 SC 256; Jamaluddin and another v. The State 2023 SCMR 1243; Khair Muhammad and another v. The State through P.G. Punjab and another 2021 SCMR 130; Abdul Ghafoor Gondal v. The State 2020 SCMR 861 and Syed Darbar Ali Shah and others v. The State 2015 SCMR 879 ref. (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----Ss.498 & 497(2)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.406---Ad-interim pre-arrest bail, confirmation of---Criminal breach of trust---Pre-requisites, missing of---Pre-arrest bail stage---Merits of case, touching upon---Ex-facie from the contents of the FIR it was revealed that the matter pertained to business transaction and the elements of entrustment as well as misappropriation being pre-requisites for attraction of S.406, P.P.C, were missing in the present case---Although, it was a pre-arrest bail application and merits for grant of bail before arrest and after arrest are altogether different but while granting pre-arrest bail even the merits of the case can be touched upon---Thus, sending the petitioner behind bars would cause irreparable loss to his reputation and would serve no useful purpose---Hence, the case of the petitioner squarely fell within the ambit of subsection (2) of S.497 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, calling for further inquiry into his guilt---Ad-interim pre-arrest bail already granted to the petitioner was confirmed---Bail petition was allowed, in circumstances. Ali Raza v. The State and others 2022 SCMR 1223; Khair Muhammad and another v. The State through P.G. Punjab and another 2021 SCMR 130; Sajid Hussain alias Jojo v. The State PLD 2021 SC 898 and Khalil Ahmed Soomro and others v. The State PLD 2017 SC 730 ref. Barrister Danyal Ijaz Chadhar with the Petitioner. Fakhar Abbas, Deputy Prosecutor General with Ismaeel, ASI for the State.

Summary: (On appeal against the order dated 21.01.2025 passed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore in Crl. Misc. No. 74957-B of 2024). (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----S. 406---Criminal breach of trust, applicability of---Requirements---Section 406 P.P.C reveals that, there are two requisite elements which are necessary to establish a case of criminal breach of trust---Firstly, the accused must have been entrusted with a property as trust (amanat), or must had dominion over it as trust (amanat)---Secondly, after such entrustment or dominion is created, the accused must have breached that trust by either dishonestly misappropriating or converting the property to his own use, or dishonestly using or disposing it of in violation of any direction of law, an express or implied legal contract related to the discharge of the trust, or willfully allowing another person to do any of these acts---Both of these elements need to be present in order to constitute criminal breach of trust. Abdul Rashid Nasir v. The State 2009 SCMR 517 and Ali Raza v. The State 2022 SCMR 1223 rel. (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----S. 497---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 406---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 185(3)---Criminal breach of trust---Bail, grant of---Further inquiry, case of---Petitioner/accused was aggrieved of not being granted post-arrest bail by High Court---Allegation against the petitioner was that he had misappropriated vehicles of the complainant---Term 'entrustment' was used in a broad sense under Section 405 P.P.C and therefore, it encompassed a wide variety of contexts in which a property was handed over by an owner to a recipient person as trust (amanat)---An entrustment could arise in any situation wherein property had been entrusted in the manner leading to the creation of a fiduciary relationship between the giver and recipient of the entrusted property---Mere failure to pay profits, or a breach of promise, agreement or contract in the absence of clear entrustment of property, do not attract criminal breach of trust---Contents of the FIR clearly stated that all the vehicles in question were given by the complainant to the petitioner in pursuance of successive business transactions---Complainant not only settled the price of the vehicles with the petitioner but also received partial payments in lieu of the said transactions---In such eventuality, it was quite clear that there was no entrustment of the vehicles as trust (amanat) to the petitioner by the complainant---In absence of any such entrustment, offence under Section 405 P.P.C, was not made out and resultantly, Section 406 P.P.C was not applicable in the present case---Contention of the complainant that the FIR explicitly stated the vehicles were given as a trust (amanat) was of no avail---Mere mentioning of the word 'trust' in the FIR did not per se establish criminal breach of trust, and the said offence could only be made out when the requisite elements of the offence stood fulfilled---View taken by the High Court in the impugned order that the petitioner could not be granted bail because he was nominated in three other FIRs was misplaced, because only previous conviction could furnish a ground for refusal of bail---None of the vehicles in question had been recovered from the petitioner---Complainant lodged FIR after a considerable delay of five months, without any explanation---Due to such reasons, case of petitioner also called for further inquiry, falling under subsection (2) of Section 497 Cr.P.C., thus the petitioner was also entitled for bail after-arrest on such ground---Offences did not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497(1) Cr.P.C., and in such cases, bail must be granted as a rule and refused only in exceptional circumstances---Petition for bail was allowed in circumstances. Zahid Jameel v. S.H.O. and 2 others 2008 YLR 2695; Shahid Imran v. The State and others 2011 SCMR 1614; Muhammad Ali v. Samina Qasim Tarar and others 2022 SCMR 2001; Rafiq Haji Usman v. Chairman, NAB and another 2015 SCMR 1575; Hashmat Ullah v. The State and others 2019 SCMR 1730; Lateef Ahmed v. The State and 3 others 2012 PCr.LJ 708; Muhammad Saifullah Cheema v. Umer Hayat and 2 others 2022 PCr.LJ 1327; Mumtaz Hussain v. The State and another 2020 PCr.LJ 1661; Khatija v. The State and another PLD 1978 Kar. 348; Ubedullah v. The State 2003 PCr.LJ 1921; Haji Javed Iqbal v. The State 2004 YLR 2288; Iqrar Ahmed and another v. The State and another 1999 YLR 1117; Mansha Khan and 2 others v. The State 1977 SCMR 449; Allah Rakha and another v. The State 1993 SCMR 1994; Muhammad Afsar v. The State 1994 SCMR 2051; Javaid Iqbal and Another v. The State 1995 SCMR 1090; Tariq Bashir v. The State PLD 1995 SC 34; Moundar and others v. The State PLD 1990 SC 934; Muhammad Rafique's case 1997 SCMR 412; Arsalan Masih v. State 2019 SCMR 1152; Babar Hussain v. State 2020 SCMR 871; Syeda Sumera Andaleeb v. The State 2021 SCMR 1227; Nazir Ahmad v. State 2022 SCMR 1467; Ali Anwar Paracha v. The State 2024 SCMR 1596; Muhammad Aurangzeb v. Karim Khan and others 2022 SCMR 849; Miraj Khan v. Gul Ahmed 2000 SCMR 122 and Imtiaz Ali v. Bismillah Khan and another 1974 PCr.LJ Note 22 rel. (c) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----S. 497---Bail---Offences not falling within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Cr.P.C.---For such offences grant of bail is a rule and refusal is an exception. Subhan Khan v. The State 2002 SCMR 1797; Zafar Iqbal v. Muhammad Anwar 2009 SCMR 1488; Muhammad Tanveer v. The State and another PLD 2017 SC 733; Arsalan Masih v. State 2019 SCMR 1152; Muhammad Ramzan v. State 2020 SCMR 717; Dr. Abdur Rauf v. The State 2020 SCMR 1258; Muhammad Nasir Shafique v. The State 2021 SCMR 2092; Iftikhar Ahmad v. The State PLD 2021 SC 799; Muhammad Daniyal Farrukh Ansari v. The State 2021 SCMR 557; Ahmad Khalid Butt v. State 2021 SCMR 1016; Abdul Saboor v. State 2022 SCMR 592; Nazir Ahmad v. State 2022 SCMR 1467; Hilal Khattak v. The State 2023 SCMR 1182; Muhammad Nawaz v. State 2023 SCMR 734; Munawar Bibi v. The State 2023 SCMR 1729; Muhammad Aziz v. State 2023 SCMR 1773; Zafar Nawaz v. State 2023 SCMR 1997; Noman Khaliq v. State 2023 SCMR 2122 and Ali Anwar Paracha v. The State 2024 SCMR 1596 rel. Waqar Ahmad Hanjra, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner (through video link from Lahore). Muhammad Jaffar, Additional Prosecutor General Punjab, Rizwan, Deputy Superintendent of Police and Shahbaz SI for the State (through video link from Lahore). Assisted by: Mian Johar Imam and Habib, Law Clerk. Date of hearing: 23rd April, 2025.

Summary: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----Ss. 498 & 403---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 406 & 408---Criminal breach of trust, criminal breach of trust by a clerk or servant---Ad-interim pre-arrest bail, withdrawal of---Allegations against the accused-petitioner were that he being employee of complainant embezzled an amount of 26,300 Omani Riyal of which were given to him for the purchase of gold---Complainant reported the incident immediately to Pakistan Embassy at Oman and the matter was onward referred to FIA for legal action---Petitioner claimed that a crime report was already registered by the complainant at Masqat/Oman, there was no scope for lodging of second FIR with respect to the same occurrence in Pakistan---In the case in hand only a crime report was registered against the petitioner at Masqat/Oman---Petitioner was neither tried nor convicted or acquitted of the charge there---Petitioner escaped from Oman/Musqat and entered into the limits of Pakistan and was arrested by the F.I.A. authorities---Since case against the petitioner was just at initial stage of investigation at Oman, hence he could not seek the help of S.403, Cr.P.C.---Inquiry/investigation, arrest and trial of petitioner in Pakistan was legal and valid for all the purposes, therefore, objection raised by petitioner was devoid of any force, hence rejected outrightly---Record spoke that when petitioner committed embezzlement in Masqat/ Oman, he immediately transferred certain amounts into his bank account at Pakistan and bank account of his wife---Petitioner, being an employee of complainant, was entrusted with cash, diamond ring and bank card, which he misappropriated and converted the same to his own use in flagrant violation of his duties as an employee---Petitioner breached the trust of his employer/ complainant---Ingredients of offence of criminal breach of trust prescribed in S.405 of P.P.C were fully attracted---Whole of the documentary evidence floating on the surface during the investigation fully connected him with the crime alleged against him---Petitioner failed to dislodge his prima facie involvement in the offence---All the circumstances were encircling petitioner from all the sides---First Information Report presented a dreadful picture---Petitioner failed to show any mala fide or ulterior motive on the part of complainant for his false implication---Extra ordinary relief of pre-arrest bail, being available only for innocent people, could not be extended in favour of the petitioner---Another aspect of the matter had escaped the notice of Investigating Officer, as such it was appropriate to adhere to the same---Amount was transferred by petitioner from Masqat/Oman to Pakistan into his own bank account as well as the bank account of his wife with the knowledge that it was proceeds of crime, as such the relevant offences under the Anti-Money Laundering Act, 2010, were also prima facie made out against the petitioner---Investigating Officer of the case was supposed to look into the said aspect of the case---Thus, the present petition had no force---Ad-interim pre-arrest bail already allowed to the petitioner was withdrawn---Petition was dismissed, in circumstances. 2022 PCr.LJ 1511 and 2011 YLR 2882 rel. Zaqa Ullah Sohi and Sajjad Mehmood Bhatti with petitioner. Mian Muhammad Naseem for the Complainant. Tayyab Ahsan Siddiqui, Assistant Attorney General. Badar, SI/FIA, with record.

Summary: Bail denied ---- (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)----Ss. 496, 497, 498 & 154---Pre-arrest bail---Foreign offence---Registration of FIR in Pakistan---Double jeopardy---Scope---Petitioner, accused of embezzling funds while employed in Oman, sought pre-arrest bail in Pakistan---FIR alleged that petitioner received cash, a diamond ring, and a bank card from complainant in Muscat, Oman, and instead of fulfilling assigned duties, transferred Omani Riyals into his and his wife’s bank accounts in Pakistan, then absconded---Petitioner argued that registration of FIR in Pakistan amounted to double jeopardy, since complaint had already been lodged in Oman---Held, registration of FIR in Pakistan not barred under S. 188, Cr.P.C., where a Pakistani citizen commits offence abroad---Criminal courts in Pakistan can try such persons if found within the country---Section 403 Cr.P.C. protection (against double jeopardy) only applies where accused has been tried and convicted or acquitted by competent court---No such trial or acquittal/conviction occurred in Oman, thus protection of S. 403 not attracted---Petitioner's objection regarding double jeopardy rejected.(b) Pakistan Penal Code (XLV of 1860)----Ss. 406, 408 & 405---Criminal breach of trust by servant---Misappropriation---Transfer of embezzled funds---Scope---Petitioner, employed as a driver in complainant’s company in Oman, was entrusted with significant cash, jewelry, and bank card---Instead of performing his duty, petitioner misappropriated the entrusted assets and transferred equivalent amount into his and his wife's bank accounts in Pakistan---Held, entrustment and subsequent dishonest misappropriation satisfied ingredients of criminal breach of trust under Ss. 405 & 408, PPC---Petitioner failed to dislodge prima facie evidence of his involvement or establish mala fide on part of complainant---Grant of pre-arrest bail held not justified.(c) Anti-Money Laundering Act, 2010----S. 3---Proceeds of crime---Offence committed abroad---Transfer of criminal proceeds into Pakistani accounts---Scope---Held, petitioner’s act of transferring embezzled funds from Oman into his and his wife's bank accounts in Pakistan, knowing it was illicit wealth, attracted provisions of Anti-Money Laundering Act, 2010---Investigating Officer directed to examine applicability of AMLA provisions for further legal action.(d) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)----Ss. 498 & 497---Pre-arrest bail---Extraordinary relief---Scope---Held, bail before arrest is an extraordinary concession granted only in cases of mala fide or false implication---Where strong prima facie evidence connects accused with offence, and no enmity or ulterior motive is established, bail cannot be granted---Petitioner’s plea of victimization held baseless---Ad-interim bail withdrawn.Disposition: Petition dismissed; ad-interim pre-arrest bail withdrawn.Cited Cases:• Dr. Imran murder case, Islamabad High Court (2022 PCr.LJ 1511)• 2011 YLR 2882• Section 403 Cr.P.C. interpreted in light of foreign prosecution protectionsCited Legislation:• Pakistan Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 405, 406, 408• Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss. 3, 154, 188, 403, 496–498• Anti-Money Laundering Act, 2010, S. 3

Summary: (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 extra ordinary relief---Ad-interim pre-arrest bail already allowed to them was confirmed, in circumstances. Shahzada Qaiser Arfat alias Qaiser v. The State and another PLD 2021 SC 708; Haji Ghani v. The State PLD 1988 Lah. 507 and Rear Adminral (Rtd.) M.I. Arshad v. The State 1988 PCr.LJ 586 rel. (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----S. 498---Bail order---Observations of the Court---Scope---Observations made in the bail order are tentative in nature and shall not influence the Trial Court in any manner. Muhammad Akmal Khan for Petitioners. Khizr Hayat Kamboh for the Complainant. Ghulam Abbas, Deputy Prosecutor General, Tahir Khursheed, ASI with record for the State.

Summary: Background: The petitioners sought pre-arrest bail in a case filed under FIR No. 238/2023, dated 17.05.2023, under Section 406 of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC). The complainant alleged that 5 to 6 years ago, the petitioners had obtained three cows and one he-buffalo worth Rs. 5,50,000/- under a share agreement but misappropriated the animals and failed to deliver the complainant's share. The petitioners argued that the allegations were mala fide and that no incriminating evidence linked them to the alleged crime. -----Issues: 1- Whether the delay in filing the FIR raises concerns about the veracity of the allegations against the petitioners. -----2- Whether the elements of criminal breach of trust under Section 406 PPC are fulfilled. -----3- Whether the petitioners' actions constitute a breach of contract rather than a criminal offense. -----4- Whether there is any mala fide or ulterior motive behind the complaint. ------Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The court noted that the alleged crime occurred 5 to 6 years prior to the registration of the FIR, with no satisfactory explanation for the delay. This raised doubts about the false implication of the petitioners. The court found that Section 406 PPC was not applicable as the complainant admitted that the animals were given to the petitioners under a business agreement, not an entrustment of property. The petitioners' failure to return the complainant's share was deemed a breach of a business agreement rather than a criminal breach of trust. No Evidence of Criminal Entrustment: Based on the evidentiary material, the court concluded that the complainant's claims did not amount to criminal entrustment. Broken business promises do not qualify as criminal offenses under Section 406 PPC. While the petitioners failed to prove mala fide conclusively, the court inferred from the case's facts and circumstances that ulterior motives could not be ruled out. The petitioners, being non-convicts who had already joined the investigation, were granted confirmation of pre-arrest bail. The court found no justification for their imprisonment, as the offense under Section 406 PPC does not fall under the prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.P.C. The petition for pre-arrest bail was allowed, and the interim pre-arrest bail granted on 20.10.2023 was confirmed, subject to fresh bail bonds. ------Citations/Precedents: Shakeel Ahmad vs. The State and another (2012 MLD 1492) Tahir Hussain v. The State and other (2020 YLR 576) Khair Muhammad and another vs. The State through PG Punjab and another (2021 SCMR 130) Shahid Imran versus The State and others (2011 SCMR 1614) Shahzada Qaiser Arfat alias Qaiser vs. The State and another (PLD 2021 SC 708) Meeran Bux v. The State and another (PLD 1989 SC 347) Khair Muhammad and another Vs. The State through P.G.Punjab and another (2021 SCMR 130) Sajid Hussain alias Joji Vs. The State (PLD 2021 SC 898) -----Quote: ''Ingredients of Section 405 PPC are not made out. Pre-Arrest Bail is Allowed''

Summary: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----Ss. 561-A & 516-A---Custody of vehicle---Last possessor priciple---Scope---Respondent No. 2 claiming to be the owner of the vehicle in question, reported to the police that 19 months ago, he had given the vehicle in question to “MS” for his temporary personal use, but “MS” never returned it to him despite his efforts---After an inquiry a criminal case at the strength of FIR against “MS” under S.406, P.P.C, was registered---Vehicle in question was recovered from the possession of the petitioner---Petitioner and the complainant both agreed to park the vehicle in Police Station---Complainant, the petitioner and one “SJ”, filed separate applications for the custody of said vehicle before Judicial Magistrate, who had allowed the application of the complainant---When arrested, “MS” admitted that he had sold the vehicle in question and promised to make good a sum of Rs. 6,30,000/- to the complainant, but he never honoured his promise---Held: Complainant had a deed showing him as the purchaser---Complainant had given the vehicle in question to “MS” for his personal use and charged the said “MS” for committed criminal breach of trust (under S.406, P.P.C)---Indeed, whatever transaction “MS” had entered into with whomsoever at any particular point of time, had no legal value for the simple reason that a criminal case had been registered against “MS” for which he had to face trial---While it was yet to be seen whether the charge against “MS” would be proved or not, at the moment, a criminal charge existed against him which prima facie disentitled anyone whose claim, somehow or the other, was traceable to him---Record showed that “SJ” had also filed a civil suit against the said “MS” and the complainant---Copy of a sale deed dated 21/03/2018 was available on the record which showed that the complainant had sold the vehicle in question to “MS”---However, there was no counterclaim of “MS” against the complainant---Where more than one person laid claim to the custody of property, the principle that the contender claiming to be last in possession would not apply, particularly when there was a criminal charge, theft or criminal breach of trust against one of them---In other words, it was to be seen whose claim stood on a higher pedestal---No force was found in petitions, which were dismissed, accordingly. Qaiser Shafeeq Vohra v. The State and another 1991 MLD 2590; Ghulam Shabbir Lashari v. The State 1991 PCr.LJ 287 and A.K.A.R.A. Chettyar v. Ma Saw Hla AIR 1937 Rangoon 450 rel. Yousaf Khan for Petitioner. Saeed Ahmad, Asst: A.G for the State. Ihsanullah for Respondent No. 2. Date of hearing: 20th February, 2023.

Summary: Background:In the case before the Supreme Court of Pakistan, Muhammad Akhtar Ali, the petitioner, contested the decisions of lower courts regarding the possession of a Toyota car, model 2013, with registration no. AZM-722. The petitioner lodged an FIR for an offense under section 406 PPC, claiming that he handed over his car to a car dealer, Haji Azhar Habib, for sale. Habib allegedly sold the car to Rana Abdul Jabbar but failed to transfer the proceeds or return the car to the petitioner. Both the petitioner and the alleged buyer filed applications for superdari (temporary custody) of the car. The magistrate granted superdari to the alleged buyer, a decision later upheld by higher courts.---Issues:The primary issue in this case was determining the rightful temporary custody of the vehicle amidst allegations of non-payment and fraudulent transfer claims.---Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The Supreme Court, after reviewing documents from the Sindh Motor Vehicle Registration Authority confirming the petitioner as the registered owner and finding no transfer application in the name of respondent No.4, overturned the lower courts' decisions. The Court held that without a valid transfer deed executed by the registered owner, any sale by the dealer was prima facie of no consequence for transferring ownership. Therefore, the petitioner was entitled to temporary custody of the vehicle. The Court converted the petition into an appeal and allowed it, subjecting the return of the vehicle to the petitioner to his furnishing surety bonds worth Rs. 2,000,000.---Citations/Precedents:Section 406 of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC) concerning criminal breach of trust.Principles regarding superdari (temporary custody) under Pakistani law.Precedent regarding the significance of registered ownership and valid transfer deeds in property transfer disputes.

Summary: ''a breach of an agreement to sell, constitutes a criminal breach of trust under Section 405 of the Pakistan Penal Code, punishable under Section 406 PPC. Furthermore, the Court clarified that civil and criminal remedies can both be pursued simultaneously in such cases.'' ----- BackgroundIn the Supreme Court of Pakistan's appellate jurisdiction, the case was presided over by Mr. Justice Ijaz Ul Ahsan and Mr. Justice Sayyed Mazahar Ali Akbar Naqvi. The civil petition number 3130 of 2020 challenged the judgment dated October 1, 2020, from the Islamabad High Court, which had quashed FIR No. 163 dated April 28, 2020. This FIR was registered against the respondents under Sections 406/448 of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC) at the Police Station Lohi Bher, Islamabad. The dispute originated from a property transaction where Muhammad Ali, the petitioner, entered into an agreement with respondent No. 1, Samina Qasim Tarar, for the purchase of a house in Bahria Town, Rawalpindi. The petitioner claimed that after partially fulfilling the payment terms and taking possession of part of the house, the respondents sold the property to another buyer.-----Issues:The validity of the Islamabad High Court's decision to quash the FIR, interpreting the matter as a civil dispute rather than a criminal case.The application of the elements constituting criminal breach of trust under Section 405 PPC in the context of the property transaction between the petitioner and the respondents.-----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The Supreme Court overturned the Islamabad High Court's decision, reinstating the FIR. The Court emphasized that the High Court failed to assess the FIR and the sale agreement's contents, which indicated a potential criminal breach of trust by the respondents. It was highlighted that the trial court should determine whether the facts constituted an "entrustment" of property and subsequent misappropriation, which are critical elements of criminal breach of trust. The Supreme Court directed the prosecution to promptly submit the charge sheet to the Trial Court, which was instructed to proceed according to law.-----Key Points:Section 405 PPC: Defines criminal breach of trust, outlining the essential elements required to establish such an offence, including the entrustment of property and its dishonest misappropriation or conversion.-Legal Principle on the Coexistence of Civil and Criminal Proceedings: The judgment implicitly relies on the established principle that civil liabilities do not preclude criminal proceedings in cases where an act constitutes both a civil wrong and a criminal offence.-Inherent Powers of the High Court: The judgment refers to the principle that the High Court's inherent powers should be used judiciously to determine if the continuance of a criminal proceeding constitutes an abuse of the process of law, especially in cases where a civil remedy might also be applicable.