IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(APPELLATE JURISDICTION) 
 
 
PRESENT: 
MR. JUSTICE UMAR ATA BANDIAL 
MR. JUSTICE MAZHAR ALAM KHAN MIANKHEL 
MR. JUSTICE SAYYED MAZAHAR ALI AKBAR NAQVI 
 
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 715 OF 2021 
(On appeal against the order dated 21.06.2021 passed 
by the Lahore High Court, Lahore in Crl. Misc.No.18050-
B/2021) 
 
Muhammad Usman Shakir 
… Petitioner 
VERSUS 
The State etc 
 
… Respondents 
 
For the Petitioner: 
Mr. Javed Imran Ranjha, ASC 
 
 
 
For the State: 
 
Mirza Abid Majeed, DPG 
 
 
 
 
Mr. Tariq, Inspector 
 
For the Complainant: 
Nemo 
 
Date of Hearing: 
 
09.09.2021 
 
ORDER 
 
SAYYED MAZAHAR ALI AKBAR NAQVI, J.- Through this petition 
under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of 
Pakistan, 1973, the petitioner seeks post arrest bail in case 
registered vide FIR No. 103/2021 dated 06.02.2021 under Section 
408 PPC at Police Station Defence-B, District Lahore. The same relief 
was denied to him by the learned Trial Court vide order dated 
08.03.2021 as well as by the learned High Court vide impugned 
order dated 21.06.2021. 
2. 
 
Briefly stated the facts of the matter are that the 
petitioner was working as Accounts Assistant in M/s Nippon Paint. 
The said company was running a scheme under which after opening 
a paint box, a token of certain amount would come out and on its 
return, the Company would re-pay the amount to the holder of the 
token. Pursuant to an audit report, it was found that the petitioner 
instead of entering the tokens in the computer system sent them 
back for redemption in the market due to which a loss of about forty 
million rupees was caused to the company.   
Criminal Petition No. 715/2021 
2
3. 
 
Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the 
petitioner has been falsely roped in this case against the actual facts 
and circumstances of this case. Contends that the prosecution has 
leveled allegation of fraud to the tune of rupees forty million but 
could not adduce any evidence in this regard except the bald 
statements of three shopkeepers recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C 
at a belated stage. Contends that the prosecution has not 
substantiated sufficient material so far against the petitioner 
whereas co-accused of the petitioner with similar role has already 
been granted bail by the learned High Court vide order dated 
01.04.2021. Further contends that following the rule of consistency, 
the petitioner also deserves to be released on bail. Lastly contends 
that the petitioner is behind the bars since 16.02.2021 without any 
trial, hence, keeping in view the principle that basic law is bail not 
jail, the petitioner is entitled to be released on bail in the interest of 
justice.  
4. 
 
On the other hand, learned Deputy Prosecutor General 
has defended the impugned order whereby post-arrest bail was 
declined to the petitioner. He contended that the petitioner along 
with his co-accused has caused a huge loss to the company and he 
is specifically named in the crime report with the specific role, 
therefore, he does not deserve any leniency by this Court. 
5. 
 
We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and 
perused the record with their able assistance.  
 
 
There are basically two main ingredients to attract the 
provisions of Section 408 PPC, (i) entrustment of property, (ii) 
misappropriation with mens rea. A plain reading of the aforesaid 
provision of law clearly reflects that the words ‘clerk’ or ‘servant’ 
have been mentioned in it. To establish criminal liability against an 
employee other than incorporated in the aforesaid provision, it 
seems essential to establish that the person against whom the 
accusation has been leveled clearly falls within the categories 
disclosed by the Legislature. Even while stretching the aforesaid 
provision of law, we deem it appropriate to evaluate the merits of the 
case, which could be a decisive factor in adjudication of the matter. 
Undeniably, the allegation against the petitioner is of causing huge 
loss of rupees forty million to the company by re-selling the tokens in 
Criminal Petition No. 715/2021 
3
the market, which were already redeemed. To substantiate the 
allegation, the prosecution has recorded the statements of three 
shopkeepers. Allegedly, the tokens amounting to Rs.11,00,000/- 
and a cash amount of Rs.200,000/- was recovered from the 
petitioner. Unless and until the nexus between the amount recovered 
from the petitioner and loss occurred is established with exactitude 
especially when the contents of the crime report do not disclose the 
denomination/value and number of tokens utilized for causing loss 
to the company, the petitioner cannot be held guilty and kept behind 
the bars. Mere statements of three shopkeepers prima facie do not 
seem sufficient to curtail the liberty of a person for an indefinite 
period especially when the co-accused of the petitioner namely 
Abdul Rehman Khalil from whom the tokens of Rs.12,00,000/- were 
recovered has been granted bail by the learned High Court vide 
order 
dated 
01.04.2021. 
Keeping 
in 
view 
the 
facts 
and 
circumstances of this case, the petitioner is also entitled for the same 
relief following the rule of consistency. Reliance is placed on the case 
reported as Muhammad Fazal @ Bodi Vs. The State (1979 SCMR 9) 
wherein this Court held as under:-  
“Without going into the merits of the case and the 
various rulings mentioned in the petition for leave to 
appeal 
requiring 
our 
consideration 
and 
interpretation, we think that the petitioner should 
be released on bail on the principle of requirement 
of consistency in the same case and for the similar 
reason that the co-accused to whom a role similar 
to that of the petitioner was attributed had been so 
released by another learned Judge of the same 
High Court.” 
 
6. 
 
Prima facie there are sufficient grounds to take into 
consideration that the case of the petitioner is fully covered by 
Section 497(2) Cr.P.C. calling for further inquiry to his guilt. The 
alleged offence also does not fall within the prohibitory clause of 
Section 497 Cr.P.C. The petitioner is behind the bars since 
16.02.2021 and no useful purpose would be served by keeping him 
behind the bars for an indefinite period till the conclusion of the 
lengthy trial. 
7. 
 
For what has been discussed above, the petitioner has 
made out a case for grant of bail. Consequently, we convert this 
petition into appeal, allow it, set aside the impugned order and 
Criminal Petition No. 715/2021 
4
admit the petitioner to bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the 
sum of Rs.200,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the 
satisfaction of learned Trial Court.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
JUDGE 
 
JUDGE 
 
 
 
JUDGE 
Islamabad, the  
9th of September, 2021 
Approved For Reporting 
Khurram 
