Masood Aslam Vs The State etc

Form No: HCJD/C-121

ORDER SHEET

IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, LAHORE

(JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT)

Case No. Crl. Misc. No.46375-CB/2026 Masood Aslam Versus The State, etc. Sr. No. of order/ Date of order/ Order with signatures of Judge, and that of parties or counsel, Proceedings Proceedings where necessary.

12.08.2026 Ch. Tariq Mehmood, Advocate for the petitioner.

This criminal miscellaneous has been filed in terms of Section 497(5) Cr.P.C. by the petitioner/complainant Masood Aslam for seeking cancellation of pre-arrest bail granted to respondent No.2 vide order dated 30.06.2026 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Lahore in case FIR No.506/2026 dated 14.05.2026, for offence under Section 406 PPC, registered at Police Station, Mozang Lahore.

2.As per contents of the FIR, the prosecution story precisely is that the respondent borrowed car bearing registration No.KY-4443 from the complainant on 28.11.2025 for ten days in order to attend a marriage ceremony and later on, he did not return the same. He initially lingered on the matter for one pretext or another and ultimately refused to return it.

3.Arguments heard. Record perused.

4.For ready reference, the operative paragraph of the order impugned is reproduced as under:- ‘a) Alongwith police record, as well as bail petition of the petitioner, attested copies of suit for declaration, specific performance with permanent injunction along with consequential relief, titled "Muhammad Akram Khokhar Vs. Masood Aslam & another", alongwith order sheet of the Learned Civil court, regarding subject vehicle is attached according

to which petitioner filed the said suit on 18.02.2026, with the assertions that he purchased the subject vehicle from the complainant against the price of Rs.75,00,000/- and possession was also delivered to him, in the said suit, complainant appeared before Learned Civil court on 05.03.2026 and requested adjournment for written statement and written reply, on 21.04.2026, ex-parte proceedings were initiated against the complainant, on 11.05.2026, complainant filed application for setting aside the ex-parte proceedings, which was accepted on the statement of learned counsel for the plaintiff of the said suit, complainant filed the written statement in the suit on 11.05.2026, while taking the stance that petitioner borrowed the subject vehicle for ten days for attending family function at Sargodha, but fraudulently retained the vehicle.

(b)The above referred two different versions of the parties, to be determined by the learned Trial Court, during the trial regarding the constitution of offence of criminal breach of trust U/s 406 PPC. c) Complainant didn't get register the FIR of this case, after ten days from 28.11.2025, rather he got registered the instant FIR on 15.05.2026, after delay of about more than six months, that too after the submission of written statement in the above referred civil suit, which was submitted on 11.05.2026. It means that the complainant had got registered the instant FIR after due deliberation, consultation and after getting legal advice. This fact is creating a doubt in the case of complainant, regarding which petitioner is entitled for benefit of doubt, at bail stage. d) Malice and malafide of the complainant could not rule out that he implicated the petitioner for some ulterior motive, as a counter blast of the above referred civil suit.

e) All the above referred facts are establishing case of further inquiry, at pre-arrest bail stage, regarding the involvement of the petitioner in this case.’

5.The considerations for the grant of bail and for cancellation of the same are altogether different. Once the bail is granted by a Court of competent jurisdiction, then strong and exceptional grounds would be required for cancellation thereof.1 Sami Ullah’s2 case has articulated the grounds to invoke and exercise jurisdiction in terms of the Section 497(5) Cr. PC. as under; Para

i)If the bail granting order is patently illegal, erroneous, factually incorrect and has resulted into miscarriage of justice.

ii)That the accused has misused the concession of bail in any manner.

iii)That accused has tried to hamper prosecution evidence by persuading/pressurizing prosecution witnesses.

iv)That there is likelihood of absconsion of the accused beyond the jurisdiction of court.

v)That the accused has attempted to interfere with the smooth course of investigation.

vi)That accused misused his liberty while indulging into similar offence.

vii)That some fresh facts and material has been collected during the course of investigation with tends to establish guilt of the accused.’

6.The above view is being consistently followed, in addition thereof, it has also been enunciated in Rab Nawaz’s3 case that the principles evolved for examining the bail granting order for purposes of its cancellation are that the Court shall interfere on two grounds i) the impugned order is perverse on the face of it and

PLD 1995 SC 34

2020 SCMR 1115

2025 SCMR 1357

(ii)the case has been decided in clear disregard of the settled principles of law.

7.Learned counsel for the petitioner was heard at great length, who argued his cause well but could not demonstrate that any of the grounds mentioned above are attracted in this case. The order impugned is neither perverse nor factually incorrect, nor is it in disregard of any settled principle of law.

8.In view of the foregoing reasons, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order, and thus, the petition in hand, being bereft of merit, is hereby dismissed in limine.

(Muhammad Amjad Pervaiz) Judge

Approved for Reporting.

JUDGE

Asif*