Syed Tariq Hussain Bukhari vs The State etc.

Form No.HCJD/C-121

ORDER SHEET

IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT,

BAHAWALPUR BENCH, BAHAWALPUR.

JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT

Crl.Misc.No.2930-B of 2026

Syed Tariq Hussain Bukhari versus The State, etc. S.No.of order / Date of Order/ Order with signature of Judge, and that of parties’ Proceeding Proceeding counsel, where necessary 20.08.2026 Mr. Muhammad Naeem Bhatti, Advocate with the petitioner.

Mr. Javed Iqbal Bhayya, Assistant District Public Prosecutor alongwith Amanullah, S.I.

Through this petition, under section 498 Cr.P.C., the petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail in case FIR No.503/2026 dated 26.06.2026, under sections 341, 188 PPC and Section 16 of the Punjab Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance, 1960 registered at Police Station Kotwali, District Bahawalpur.

2.Succinctly, the facts of the case are that on 26.06.2026 at about 11:00 p.m., the petitioner/accused, in his capacity as administrator, took out a procession of Noha Khawani and Matam Dari in violation of the approved route, thereby causing obstruction on the road and inconvenience to the general public, in contravention of the relevant notification and applicable law. Hence, the instant FIR on

3.Contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant District Public Prosecutor have been heard and record of the case has been perused with their able assistance.

4.Although, it is a pre-arrest bail application but the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Pakistan has held, a number of times, while granting pre-arrest bail even merits of the case can be touched upon, or looked at and discussed. Reference is made to “Sajid Husain alias Joji v. The State” (PLD 2021 SC 898), “Javed Iqbal v. The State through Prosecutor General Punjab and another” (2022 SCMR 1424) and “Muhammad Imran Nasrullah v. The State and others”

(2022 SCMR 1946).

5.FIR and the material collected by police and presented before this Court reveals that the petitioner is nominated in FIR with the allegation of violation of the approved route while conducting the procession of Noha Khawani and Matam Dari by complainant/Sajid Nazir, S.I., Police Station Samma Satta. However, a copy of Certificate of Appreciation dated 09.07.2026 issued by the District Police Officer, Bahawalpur, has been submitted by the petitioner, the petitioner has been appreciated for his cooperation with the police and especially his efforts towards maintaining peace and law & order during Muharram-ul- Haram, particularly in connection with the peaceful conduct of Majalis, Noha Khawani and Matam Dari, were lauded. Significantly, the said certificate was issued after the alleged occurrence dated 26.06.2026. The subsequent appreciation of the petitioner by the District Police Officer for his role in maintaining peace during the religious proceedings does not, prima facie, reconcile with the prosecution allegation that the petitioner had acted in a manner causing obstruction and disturbance that resulted in public nuisance. This peculiar circumstance casts serious doubt upon the prosecution version and makes the culpability of the petitioner a matter requiring further probe, to be determined by the learned trial Court after recording and evaluating the evidence. Hence, in

the facts and circumstances of this case, the possibility of false implication of the petitioner cannot be ruled out. Reliance is respectfully placed on the case of “Shahid Abbas v. The State and others” (2021 SCMR 2082).

6.Learned ADPP has argued with vehemence that the petitioner has failed to point out any mala fide or ulterior motive on the part of complainant or the police party, which is sine qua non for confirmation of pre-arrest bail. It is well settled by now that it is not possible in each and every case to prove the mala fide and the same can be gleaned from the facts and circumstances of the case. I am fortified by the dictum laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in cases titled as “Khalil Ahmed Soomro v. The State” (PLD 2017 SC 730) and “Shahzada Qaiser Arfat alias Qaiser v. The State and another” (PLD 2021 SC 708).

7.Another aspect worth noticing is that out of the offences mentioned in the FIR, Sections 341 and 188 of PPC are bailable in nature. Though the offence under Section 16 of the Punjab Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance, 1960 is non-bailable by virtue of Section 22 ibid, but the maximum punishment provided for is upto three years’ imprisonment, or fine, or both. Thus, the said offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497(1), Cr.P.C. This circumstance, when considered alongside the material discussed above, further weighs in favour of the petitioner for the purposes of bail.

8.Yet another facet of the nature of the offences mentioned in the FIR, not immaterial for decision of this bail application, is that no recovery of any sort is to be effected from the petitioner. learned ADPP has also not been able to substantiate as to what lawful purpose, the intended arrest of the present petitioner, would serve in furtherance of

prosecution’s case. Therefore, no useful purpose shall be served by causing the petitioner’s arrest. It is trite law that denial of bail in such like cases will amount to pre-trial punishment, which is not permissible. Reference is made to the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “Naeem Qadir Sheikh and another v. The State and others” (2022 SCMR

9.The epitome of above discussion is that the petitioner has succeeded in making out a case for confirmation of pre-arrest bail, hence, this petition is allowed and ad-interim pre-arrest bail already granted to the petitioner vide order dated 17.07.2026 is confirmed, subject to his furnishing of fresh bail bonds in the sum of Rs.100,000/- (Rupees one hundred thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial court.

10.Before parting, it is clarified that the observations made hereinabove are tentative in nature and the Trial Court shall be free to decide the case, on merits, without being influenced in any manner from the same, strictly in accordance with law.

(Muhammad Usman Ghani Rashid Cheema) Judge Waqas*

Approved for reporting

Judge