Muhammad Akhtar & 1 Other vs State etc.

Form No. HCJD/C-121

ORDER SHEET

IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT

MULTAN BENCH MULTAN

JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT

Crl.Misc. No.5827-B of 2026 Muhammad Akhtar & another. Vs. The State & another. Sr. No. of Date of Order with signature of Judge and that of parties or order/ order/ counsel, where necessary. proceedings. proceedings.

17.08.2026 Mr. Majeed Akbar Lodhi, Advocate for the petitioners. Rana Ghulam Hussain, Assistant Attorney General for Pakistan with M. Zeeshan Riaz, S.H.O, F.I.A.

Through instant petition, the petitioners, namely Muhammad Akhtar and Muhammad Ansar, seek post-arrest bail in FIR No. 12/26 dated 04.07.2026, registered under Sections 409, 420, and 109 PPC at Police Station FIA, District D.G. Khan.

2.The allegations against the petitioners, namely Muhammad Akhtar and Muhammad Ansar (petitioners), in the FIR and from the evidentiary material collected during the course of the investigation produced before the Court, are that they both were involved in receiving various amounts from the beneficiaries of the Ehsaas Kafalat Program (BISP Scheme) for the release of amounts in their names, and were also involved with an HBL Konnect biometric device and an Infinix mobile phone, retaining the Computerized National Identity Cards (CNICs) of the beneficiaries.

3.I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Assistant Attorney General for Pakistan in the presence of the complainant/investigating officer, and perused the record with their able assistance.

4.The petition in hand is a post-arrest bail petition, and only a tentative assessment of the evidentiary material produced before the Court can be made at this stage. In the FIR itself, it is mentioned that

“at the time of raid, two agents standing inside Ansar Mobile who were intercepted were taking CNICs of the beneficiaries and a commission amount of Rs.1,000 from ladies who came there to receive their amount) from each of the beneficiaries of the Ehsaas Kafalat Program (BISP Scheme”. No allegations have been made against the petitioners that they were entrusted with any amount by any of the beneficiaries and that they then dishonestly misappropriated the same. When there is no allegation that they were entrusted with any amount by the beneficiaries, and the allegations are merely that they retained Rs.1,000 out of the total amount which they handed over to each beneficiary of the Ehsaas Kafalat Program (BISP Scheme), then the case of the petitioners becomes one of cheating and not criminal breach of trust. Obviously, the offense of cheating is bailable in nature as per Schedule II of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. Therefore, an outward effort has been made by the investigating officer of the case to convert the offense of cheating into criminal breach of trust, disregarding the narrative of the FIR as well as the statements recorded of the witnesses. In this backdrop, the culpability of the petitioners as to whether they were privy to the crime would be determined by the learned trial court after the recording of evidence. The petitioners were arrested in the case on 04.07.2026 and have since been behind the bars. Based on the particular facts and circumstances of the case, where there are no allegations that the petitioners would abscond or interfere with the witnesses, keeping the petitioners behind bars would serve no useful purpose. It is not the prosecution's case that the petitioners are withholding any official record, or that the agents of a bank in whose name any machine/biometric apparatus was issued are withholding it. The relevant record and the evidence collected during the investigation are with the prosecution, and therefore, there is no

question of tampering with the evidence. For what has been discussed above, case of the petitioners becomes one of further inquiry under Section 497(2)Cr.P.C. Liability of petitioners for the offences would be determined by the learned trial court after sifting the evidentiary worth of the material produced before the same. Reliance in this regard in place on “Saeed Ahmed vs. The State” (1996 SCMR 1132) wherein it has been held as under:- “The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that there is no prohibition for grant of bail in respect of offences mentioned above, but with malafide intention subsequently offence under section 409 PPC. The case entirely depends upon documentary evidence which seems to be in possession of the prosecution and challan has already been submitted. The objection of the learned counsel regarding addition of section 409, PPC may carry some weight while considering the bail, application. As there is no possibility of tampering with the evidence, which is entirely documentary in nature and in possession of the prosecution, in the circumstances, we convert the petition into an appeal and allow it, and grant bail to the petitioner on furnishing one surety in the sum of Rs.50,000/- to the satisfaction of the Deputy Registrar, Supreme Court, Lahore.”

Reliance is also placed on the case of “Muhammad Nawaz vs. The State through Chairman, NAB, Islamabad and another” (PLD 2008 SC 438). It has been observed by the Honorable Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of Manzoor and 4 others versus The State (PLD 1972 SC 81) as under:-

“It is important to remember that bail is not to be withheld as a punishment there is no legal or moral compulsion to keep people in jail merely on the allegation that they have committed offences punishable with death or transportation, unless reasonable grounds appear to exist to disclose their complicity.”

In the reported case “Muhammad Saeed Mehdi vs. The State and 2 others” (2002 SCMR 282), it was observed that bail cannot be withheld as punishment in cases of non-bailable offence against the accused and that the basic idea was to enable the accused to answer the criminal prosecution against him rather than to make him not behind bars. In the same case, the apex Court observed that truth or otherwise of the allegation could only be determined at the trial after analysis of evidence that might be adduced by the parties. Further reliance is place upon the case reported as Muhammad Sarfraz Ansari v. The State and others (PLD 2021 Supreme Court 738), wherein Honorable Supreme Court held as under:

“We are fully cognizant of the well-settled principle that at the bail stage the court is not to make deeper examination and appreciation of the evidence collected during investigation or to conduct anything in the nature of preliminary trial to determine the accused’s guilt or innocence.”

5.For what has been discussed above, this petition is accepted and petitioners are admitted to post-arrest bail subject to their furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (one lac only) each with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial court.

6.It is clarified that the observations enumerated are absolutely tentative in nature and restricted only to the extent of this particular petition, having no nexus and relevance with the trial, which shall be concluded quite independently and purely on merit.

(SYED FARHAD ALI SHAH)

JUDGE

Approved for reporting.

JUDGE

Subhani*