PLJ 2026 Cr.C. (Note) 9
[Lahore High Court, Multan Bench]
Present: Muhammad Tariq Nadeem, J.
ZAHID SIDDIQUE--Petitioner
versus
STATE and another--Respondents
Crl. Misc. No. 3796-B of 2025, decided on 8.9.2025.
Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 (V of 1898)--
S. 497-بنیادی اصول ضمانت ہے نہ کہ جیل - - انکار ایک استثنا ہے-اب یہ اچھی طرح سے طے شدہ اصول ہے کہ اگر جرائم سیکشن 497 ،ضابطہ فوجداری کی ممنوعہ شق کے تحت نہیں آتے ہیں ۔ پھر بنیادی اصول ہے "ضمانت ، جیل نہیں" اور "انکار ایک استثنا" - - اس معاملے میں کوئی غیر معمولی صورتحال دستیاب نہیں ہے کیونکہ درخواست گزار کو اس کی کریڈٹ پر کوئی سابقہ سزا نہیں ہے-بصورت دیگر ، کسی شخص کی آزادی ایک قیمتی حق ہے جس کی ضمانت اسلامی جمہوریہ پاکستان کے آئین ، 1973 نے دی ہے ۔
----S. 497--Basic rule is bail not jail--Refusal is an exception--It is by now well-settled principle that if offences do not fall within prohibitory clause of Section 497, Cr.P.C. then basic rule is “bail, not jail” and “refusal an exception”--No exceptional circumstance is available in this case as petitioner has no previous conviction at his credit--Even otherwise, liberty of a person is a precious right which has been guaranteed by Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. [Para 4] A
PLD 1995 SC 34 & 2025 SCMR 1130.
Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 (V of 1898)--
ایس ۔ 497-پاکستان پینل کوڈ ، 1860 (1860 کا ایکس ایل وی) ایس ۔ 471 ، 406 ، 419 ، 420 ، 109 ؛ 34 اور 368-الیکٹرانک جرائم کی روک تھام ایکٹ ، 2016 (2016 کا 40) ایس ایس. 13 ، 14 اور 16-- ضمانت ، گرانٹ-- کا دعوی-- دھوکہ دہی اور مالی غبن-درخواست گزار اسی نوعیت کے دیگر مقدمات میں بھی ملوث ہے ، تسلیم شدہ طور پر درخواست گزار کے خلاف کوئی سزا کا حکم ریکارڈ پر نہیں لایا گیا ہے تاکہ یہ ثابت ہو سکے کہ وہ سابقہ مجرم ہے - ہولڈ: یہ قانون کا طے شدہ اصول ہے کہ کسی ملزم کے خلاف محض اسی نوعیت کے مقدمات درج کرنا اسے ضمانت کی رعایت سے محروم کرنے کی کوئی بنیاد نہیں ہے ۔ - درخواست گزار ، اس کی گرفتاری کے بعد ، اس معاملے میں عدالتی لاک اپ میں بھیج دیا گیا ہے-تفتیش پہلے ہی مکمل ہو چکی ہے اور اسے مزید تفتیش کے لیے پولیس کی طرف سے مزید ضرورت نہیں ہے - - لہذا ، درخواست گزار کی مزید قید سے کوئی مفید مقصد پورا نہیں ہوگا اور ضمانت کی رعایت کو سزا کے طور پر نہیں روکا جا سکتا-درخواست کی اجازت ہے ۔
----S. 497--Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 (XLV of 1860), Ss. 471, 406, 419, 420, 109; 34 & 368--Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act, 2016 (XL of 2016), Ss. 13, 14 & 16--Bail, grant of--Allegation of--Fraud and financial misappropriation--The petitioner is also involved in other cases of similar nature is concerned, admittedly no conviction order has been brought on record against petitioner to establish that he is a previous convict--Held: It is settled principle of law that mere registration of cases of similar nature against an accused person is no ground to deprive him from concession of bail--The petitioner, after his arrest, in this case has been sent to judicial lockup--The investigation has already been completed and he is no more required by police for further investigation--Therefore, further incarceration of petitioner would not serve any useful purpose and concession of bail cannot be withheld as punishment--Petition allowed. [Para 6 & 7] B, C & D
2017 SCMR 279; 2022 SCMR 1467; 2024 SCMR 1596 &
2019 SCMR 1914.
Mr. Muhammad Bilal Butt, Advocate for Petitioner.
Rana Ghulam Hussain, Assistant Attorney General for State.
Mr. Abdul Qayyum Rao, Advocate for Complainant.
Date of hearing: 8.9.2025.
Order
Through this petition filed under Section 497, Cr.P.C. The petitioner has sought post-arrest bail in case FIR No. 53 dated 13.03.2025, for the offences under Sections 471, 406, 419, 420, 109, 34, 468, PPC read with Sections 13, 14 and 16 of the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act, 2016, registered at Police Station FIA/CC, Multan.
2. Precisely the story narrated in FIR is that the complainant was having friendly relations with petitioner’s co-accused namely Muhammad Iqbal, who, with mala fide intention and ulterior motives, deceitfully induced him to invest in Venus Group of Companies, which purportedly was engaged in international online business investments promising substantial profits in US dollars. Eventually the complainant was misled and he invested certain huge amounts in the Venus Group of Companies, but contrary to the assurance of hefty profits, the accused persons failed to return even the principal amount to the complainant and thereby a systematic fraud and financial misappropriation was committed by deceiving him through false investment schemes, hence, this case.
3. Contentions heard. Record perused.
4. After going through the narration of FIR as well as evidentiary material collected by the police and presented before this Court, it divulges that although petitioner is nominated in FIR with the above mentioned allegation, but the fact remains that the offences under Sections 420 and 471, PPC as well as Sections 13, 14 and 16 of the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act, 2016, are bailable in nature whereas remaining offences do not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Cr.P.C. It is by now well-settled principle that if the offences do not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Cr.P.C. then basic rule is “bail, not jail” and “refusal an exception”. No exceptional circumstance is available in this case as the petitioner has no previous conviction at his credit. Even otherwise, liberty of a person is a precious right which has been guaranteed by the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. Reliance is placed on the case-laws reported as “Tariq Bashir and 5 others v. The State” (PLD 1995 SC 34) and “Muhammad Amjad Naeem v The State through Prosecutor General Punjab and another” (2025 SCMR 1130).
5. In addition to the above, it is worthwhile noticeable here that apart from the instant crime report, the petitioner was implicated by another complainant in case FIR No. 60 of 2025 dated 20.03.2025, registered at Police Station FIA/CC, Multan, for the commission of the alleged offences under Sections 419, 420, 468, 471, 406, 109 and 34, PPC read with Sections 13 and 14 of the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act, 2016, however, allegations leveled in above mentioned FIR No. 60 of 2025 were almost identical to the allegations leveled against the petitioner in the instant crime report. Initially the petitioner was declined Post-arrest bail in FIR No. 60 of 2025 by this Court vide order 14.05.2025, which was assailed before the Supreme Court of Pakistan through Criminal Petition No. 978 of 2025 and the Supreme Court of Pakistan, while converting it into appeal, has allowed the same by extending the concession of bail to the petitioner vide order dated 20.08.2025. Since the Supreme Court of Pakistan has been pleased to hold the petitioner, though burdened by a different complainant but with almost similar allegations, entitled to the concession of bail, therefore, this Court finds no valid justification to differ with the wisdom laid down by the Supreme Court of Pakistan in op. cit. order dated 20.08.2025.
6. So far as contention of learned Assistant Attorney General assisted by learned counsel for the complainant that the petitioner is also involved in other cases of similar nature is concerned, admittedly no conviction order has been brought on the record against the petitioner to establish that he is a previous convict. It is settled principle of law that mere registration of cases of similar nature against an accused person is no ground to deprive him from the concession of bail. Reliance is placed on the case-laws titled as “Qurban Ali v. The State and another” (2017 SCMR 279), “Nazir Ahmad alias Bhaga v. The State and others” (2022 SCMR 1467) and “Ali Anwar Paracha v. The State and another” (2024 SCMR 1596).
7. The petitioner, after his arrest, in this case has been sent to judicial lockup. The investigation has already been completed and he is no more required by the police for further investigation. Therefore, further incarceration of the petitioner would not serve any useful purpose and concession of bail cannot be withheld as punishment. Reliance is placed upon the case titled as “Husnain Mustafa v. The State and another” (2019 SCMR 1914).
8. For the foregoing reasons, this petition is allowed and petitioner is admitted to post-arrest bail subject to furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 10,00,000/-with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
9. It is, however, clarified that the observations made hereinabove are tentative in nature, and strictly confined to the disposal of this bail petition.
(A.A.K.) Petition allowed
0 Comments