ISLAMABAD: Expressing concern over the growing misuse of criminal law to settle civil monetary disputes, the Islamabad High Court has granted post-arrest bail to a citizen, observing that the mere use of the word ‘amaanat’ (trust) by a complainant cannot transform outright financial advances and the voluntary handing over of a vehicle into a criminal breach of trust.

Justice Shahrukh Arjumand passed the order on a petition filed by Taimoor Amir, who was booked in an FIR registered at the police station Koral under Sections 406 (criminal breach of trust) and 411 (dishonestly receiving stolen property) of the Pakistan Penal Code.

The complainant, Dr Fatima Younas, had alleged that Mr Amir misappropriated Rs882,000 and a Scooty worth Rs300,000 entrusted to him as amaanat. However, the court noted that the FIR itself revealed a materially different factual arrangement, including the sale of mobile phones by the complainant herself, cash and bank transfers made to the petitioner, and the Scooty being given to him voluntarily for use.

“The statutory enquiry must remain directed to the legal character of the original transfer and not merely to the grievance arising from its subsequent non-return,” the judge observed. “Every failure to return property, every non-payment of money, every breach of promise, or every failure to honour a financial commitment does not, by itself, constitute criminal breach of trust.”

The court warned that Section 405 of the PPC was increasingly being invoked in circumstances that were purely civil in nature, such as business disputes, merely to expedite recovery or exert undue pressure on the opposing party. This practice, the judgement noted, not only undermines the sanctity of civil remedies but also clogs the criminal justice system and exposes individuals to unwarranted criminal proceedings, culminating in grave miscarriages of justice.

About the legal question of bail, the court observed that the offences alleged against the petitioner carry maximum sentences of seven and three years, respectively, placing them outside the prohibitory clause of Section 497(1) CrPC.

Relying on the Supreme Court’s authoritative precedent in Tariq Bashir vs the State, Justice Arjumand reiterated that in non-bailable offences punishable with less than 10 years, “the grant of bail is the rule and refusal is an exception” — an exception that applies only in cases of likelihood of abscondence, tampering with evidence, repetition of the offence, or where the accused is a previous convict. The prosecution failed to establish any such exceptional circumstance against Mr Amir, who has remained behind bars since April 22, 2026.

The bench also drew a sharp distinction between criminal breach of trust and the offence of receiving stolen property under Section 411 PPC, observing that the complainant herself had handed over the Scooty to the petitioner, meaning it did not acquire the statutory character of “stolen property” merely because he later failed to return it. The court left it to the trial court to independently assess whether the ingredients of Section 411 are prima facie attracted, directing the lower court to record a reasoned order on this aspect.

Justice Arjumand directed the petitioner to furnish bail bonds in the sum of Rs100,000 with one surety in the like amount.

Published in Dawn, August 25th, 2026