Muhammad Sarwar Vs The State etc

Form No. HCJD/C-121

ORDER SHEET

IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT LAHORE

JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT

Crl.Misc.No.35608-B of 2026 Muhammad Sarwar vs. The State and another.

Sr. No. of Date of Order with signatures of Judge, and that of parties or order/ order/ counsel, where necessary.

proceedings proceedings.

19.08.2026 Mr.Muhammad Abbas Ali Ansari, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ch.Usman Ghani, Assistant Attorney General with Irfan SHO/FIA.

Through the instant petition under section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (Cr.P.C), the petitioner seeks bail after arrest in case FIR No.CCC-LHR- 20/2026 dated 02.03.2026 for offences under sections 489- B, 489-C P.P.C. registered at Police Station Corporate Crime Circle, Lahore (CCC).

2.As per contents of the F.I.R., the prosecution story, precisely, is that pursuant to secret information regarding the involvement of a gang in the illegal business, possession and transportation of counterfeit Pakistani currency notes, a raiding team comprising officials of the F.I.A. apprehended the petitioner. Upon his personal search, counterfeit Pakistani currency notes amounting to Rs.200,000/- (200 notes of Rs.1,000/- denomination each) were allegedly recovered from his possession. It is further alleged that, at the time of his arrest, the petitioner confessed to counterfeiting of currency notes and sale thereof since last one year.

3.Arguments heard. Record perused.

4.At this stage of tentative assessment, it has been observed that the raid has been conducted in pursuance of secret information and the petitioner was arrested at a busy public place yet no independent witness was associated during the proceedings. No evidence against the petitioner

Crl.Misc.No.35608-B of 2026

is available on the record to support the allegations of counterfeiting currency notes or sale thereof in the market, except the above so-called confession which is inadmissible. There is no evidence as to any past or prospective buyer/customer. As of now, material available on record is not sufficient to attract the mischief of section 489-B P.P.C and the available evidence, at the most, makes out a case in terms of section 489-C P.P.C. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the question of guilt of the petitioner qua the offence calls for further inquiry within the ambit of section 497(2) Cr.P.C, as per principles enunciated in various cases which are reproduced below. Possession simpliciter of a counterfeit currency note does not constitute ingredients of section 489-B, P.P.C.1 5. It is settled legal position that at the bail stage deeper appreciation of the record cannot be gone into, but only a tentative assessment is to be made just to find out as to whether present applicants/accused are connected with the commission of offence or not. Applying the above settled legal position to the case in hand, it will be seen that prima facie ingredients of section 489-B, P.P.C. are not met in the circumstances of the case, but at best it can be a case of section 489-C, P.P.C. for which maximum punishment is prescribed to the extent of seven years or with fine or with both, which does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C.2

6.It is for the learned trial Court to determine finally whether provisions of sections 489-B or 489-C, P.P.C. are attracted in this case, of course, after recording evidence. As of now, case against the petitioner calls for further enquiry falling within the ambit of section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure.).3

1995, SCMR, 48, 1996 P Cr.LJ 815.

2012 YLR 1228

2021 SCMR 729

Crl.Misc.No.35608-B of 2026

7.It is since settled law that the benefit of doubt goes to the accused even at bail stage.4 The petitioner is behind the bars since his arrest. Nothing is to be recovered from him. In this case, evidence is documentary in nature which is already in possession of the prosecution and the question of tampering may not arise.5

8.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. The ultimate conviction and incarceration of a guilty person can repair the wrong caused by a mistaken relief of interim bail granted to him, but no satisfactory reparation can be offered to an innocent man for his unjustified incarceration at any stage of the case albeit his acquittal in the long run.6

9.While dealing with the question of whether or not bail is to be granted to an accused, it has to be kept in mind that the object of bail is to secure the attendance of the accused at the trial. The object is neither punitive nor preventive. Imprisonment of a person and deprivation of his liberty, cannot be described other than, being a punishment, unless no less restrictive alternative is available to ensure that the accused will stand his trial when called upon to do so. All civilized societies recognize the principle that punishment comes only after conviction, and the presumption of innocence subsist with the accused, till he is handed down punishment after trial.7 10. Learned Law Officer has urged for refusal of bail to the petitioner on the ground that further evidence may surface in the case of arrest of co-accused Muhammad Asif

PLD 1995 SC 34

2026 SCP 116

PLD 1972 SC 81

PLD 2020 SC 456

Crl.Misc.No.35608-B of 2026

yet to be arrested. Suffice it to say that surfacing of new facts and material tending to establish guilt of an accused is a valid ground to seek cancellation of bail.8 11. For what has been discussed above, the instant petition is accepted and the petitioner is admitted to post arrest bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial court.

12.Before parting with this order, it is clarified that if the petitioner or anyone else acting on his behalf, in any way, delays the conclusion of the trial, the other side (State or the complainant) shall be at liberty to file a petition for cancellation of bail.9

13.It is also elucidated that the above observations are tentative in nature only for the purpose of decision of this bail application and the same shall not influence the fate of the trial.

( Muhammad Amjad Pervaiz ) Judge

Approved for reporting.

Judge

M.J.Mehmood.

2020 SCMR 1115

2017 SCMR 1936