Muhammad Irfan Asghar etc. vs The State etc.

Crl.M.No.2888-B-2026 1

Form No: HCJD/C-121

ORDER SHEET

IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT

BAHAWALPUR BENCH BAHAWALPUR

JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT

Crl.Misc.No.2888-B of 2026

Muhammad Irfan Asghar, etc. Versus The State & another. S. No. of Date of order/ Order with signature of Judge, and that of parties or counsel, where order/ Proceeding necessary Proceeding 09.09.2026. Rao Nasir Mehmood Khan, Advocate with petitioners. Mr. Najeeb Ullah Jatoi, DPG with Akhtar A.S.I. Mr. Saad Ashiq, Advocate for complainant

Muhammad Irfan Asghar and Muhammad Khan (petitioners) have applied for their pre-arrest bail in case FIR No.508 recorded on 19.06.2026 under Sections 506-B, 342, 186, 382, 148, 149 PPC rad with Section 12 and 13 of the Punjab Prevention of Speculation in Essential Commodities, 2021 at police station Minchanabad, District Bahawalnagar.

2.Precise allegations against petitioners are that on 19.06.2026 at about 04:00 p.m, petitioners along with their co- accused armed with deadly weapons attacked upon complainant party, confined the complainant party in a Bethak. During occurrence they also committed theft of wheat crop and extended threat of dire consequences and obstructed in discharge of public functions. Hence this FIR.

3.Arguments heard. Record perused.

4.Another significant circumstance which requires consideration at this stage is the statutory scheme introduced by the Punjab Enforcement and Regulation Act, 2024. The said enactment has created a distinct enforcement mechanism through Enforcement Stations and has conferred specific statutory powers and functions upon the Sub-Divisional Enforcement Officer, Enforcement Officers and Investigation Officers in relation to the

enforcement and implementation of the Act and the Scheduled Laws. Section 19 of the Act provides for establishment of Enforcement Stations, while section 22(3) specifically makes the Sub-Divisional Enforcement Officer responsible for the enforcement and implementation of the Act and Scheduled Laws. More importantly, under section 22(4)(e), (f), (g) and (h), the Sub- Divisional Enforcement Officer is empowered to initiate, conduct and facilitate inquiries, register FIRs and conduct investigations as provided in the Code, make arrests and submit reports to the Magistrate. Likewise, section 26 confers upon the Investigation Officer specific powers of entry, inspection, search, seizure, arrest, collection of evidence and filing of complaints and getting FIRs registered at the Enforcement Station under the Code.

5.The aforesaid statutory framework assumes considerable significance in the present case because, according to the prosecution itself, the alleged occurrence originated from a checking/enforcement operation concerning wheat, which was undertaken by the specialized enforcement officials. Thus, the officials who allegedly detected the violation were not ordinary private persons but officials functioning within a specially created statutory enforcement regime. The Act not only prescribes their functions but also provides a specific institutional mechanism for inquiry, investigation, registration of FIRs and subsequent proceedings. In particular, section 26(3)(j) expressly empowers the Investigation Officer to file complaints and get FIRs registered at the Enforcement Station, whereas section 22(4)(f) entrusts the Sub- Divisional Enforcement Officer with the function of registering FIRs and conducting investigations as provided in the Code.

6.In this backdrop, an important question arises as to why, despite the alleged checking operation having been conducted by the PERA officials and despite the statutory powers vested in the Enforcement Station and its officers, the instant criminal case was registered at the local police station, namely Police Station

Minchanabad, without the record presently demonstrating that any complaint, written report or istagasa was submitted by the concerned PERA officer in accordance with the statutory scheme. This circumstance assumes further significance because the prosecution itself relies upon the alleged obstruction/interference with the official checking operation as part of the occurrence. At least prima facie, the record does not satisfactorily disclose whether the PERA authorities exercised the powers specifically conferred upon them by sections 22, 26 and 32 of the Act, or whether the local police independently assumed jurisdiction and proceeded to register the FIR.

7.The question is not, at this stage, whether the local police were absolutely precluded from registering an FIR in every eventuality. Such a final determination would require examination of the Punjab Enforcement and Regulation Act, the Code and the applicable Scheduled Law in their proper perspective and is not warranted at the bail stage. Nevertheless, where a special statute has created a complete enforcement structure, has established Enforcement Stations, has designated officers for inquiry and investigation, and has expressly assigned the function of registration of FIRs and investigation to specified officers, the failure to invoke or follow that statutory mechanism is a circumstance which cannot be brushed aside while examining the case under section 497(2), Cr.P.C. It gives rise to a legitimate question requiring further investigation as to the competence, authority and manner in which the criminal proceedings were initiated.

8.The omission of the concerned PERA officials to lodge the complaint or istagasa, or otherwise to set the statutory mechanism into motion, despite being the officials who allegedly conducted the checking operation, also requires examination. Sections 20 and 25 of the Act contemplate coordination between the Enforcement Station and other agencies, whereas section 26

prescribes the powers and functions of the Investigation Officer and section 32 provides the procedure to be followed after arrest. The statutory scheme, therefore, cannot be treated as an irrelevant formality. The prosecution is required to explain whether the concerned Enforcement Station was established and operational within the relevant territorial jurisdiction, who was the competent Sub-Divisional Enforcement Officer, which officer conducted the inspection, who prepared the alleged recovery/seizure record, whether any complaint was submitted by such officer, and why the FIR was registered by the local police instead of through the mechanism contemplated by the special law. These questions have a direct bearing upon the manner in which the prosecution case came into existence and consequently constitute matters requiring further probe.

9.Furthermore, the alleged offences relating to the wheat stock and the provisions of the Punjab Prevention of Speculation in Essential Commodities Act, 2021 are also required to be examined in conjunction with the statutory powers conferred upon the PERA authorities under the 2024 Act. The record regarding the alleged stock, inspection, seizure, recovery, licence or permission, authority of the inspecting officials and the procedure adopted in relation thereto would be material for determining whether the alleged violation was duly detected and proceeded against in accordance with law. Section 26 of the Punjab Enforcement and Regulation Act, 2024 specifically prescribes the powers of the Investigation Officer regarding inspection, search, seizure, collection of evidence and registration of criminal proceedings. In the absence of clear material showing compliance with the prescribed mechanism, the prosecution case, at least tentatively, calls for further inquiry.

10.The individual role of the petitioners also requires further probe. The allegations of wrongful confinement, obstruction in official functions, snatching/removal of wheat, use of force and

extension of threats are required to be considered in the light of the statements of the concerned enforcement officials, the inspection and seizure record, the manner in which the alleged occurrence was reported, and the statutory authority under which the checking operation was being conducted. At the present stage, it would neither be safe nor legally appropriate to undertake a deeper appreciation of such evidence. Suffice it to observe that the material available on record does not place the matter beyond the scope of further inquiry contemplated by section 497(2), Cr.P.C. “according to the Act, it was the exclusive duty of PERA Force to register the FIR” unless the complete Act, its Schedule, Rules/Regulations, and the particular notification establishing the Enforcement Station support that proposition. A stronger and safer judicial formulation is that the 2024 Act creates a specific statutory mechanism and expressly assigns powers concerning complaints, FIR registration and investigation to designated PERA officers, thereby making the unexplained departure from that mechanism a matter of further inquiry. It is well-recognized principle of criminal jurisprudence arising out of the maxim communi observantia non est recedendum that when the law prescribes a specific procedure, it must be followed accordingly; any deviation renders the act questionable. In this context, reference may be made to the cases reported as Noman Mansoor alias Nomi vs. The State (PLD 2024 SC 805), Ahmed Ali vs. The State (2023 SCMR 781), Muhammad Hashim vs The State (PLD2004 SC 856) and Ameer Zeb vs. The State (PLD 2012 SC 380).

11.The unexplained delay of more than five hours in lodging the FIR, coupled with the uncertainty surrounding the statutory mechanism through which the alleged enforcement violation was required to be reported and investigated, assumes particular significance. The alleged checking operation commenced at about 04:00 p.m., whereas the FIR was registered at about 09:35 p.m. The prosecution has yet to satisfactorily explain not only the

delay but also the intervening process through which the occurrence was communicated, the complaint was prepared or otherwise initiated, and the local police came to register the FIR despite the special statutory framework governing enforcement proceedings.

12.It is, therefore, not merely a question of technical irregularity. The material presently available raises a substantive question as to the proper statutory channel for initiation of proceedings, the authority of the respective enforcement and police officials, the exercise or non-exercise of powers vested in the PERA authorities, and the evidentiary consequences of such non- compliance. Whether the concerned PERA officials were legally required to lodge the complaint, initiate the proceedings or have the FIR registered through the Enforcement Station, and whether the subsequent registration of the FIR by the local police was in accordance with the governing law, are questions which can appropriately be determined after investigation and production of the relevant official record.

13.It is settled that at the stage of bail the Court is not required to conduct a meticulous examination of the evidence or finally determine disputed questions of law and fact. However, where the prosecution material itself discloses circumstances which reasonably create doubt regarding the manner of initiation of criminal proceedings, the authority of the officials concerned, the observance of the statutory procedure and the individual connection of the accused with the alleged offences, the case squarely falls within the ambit of further inquiry contemplated by section 497(2), Cr.P.C. The purpose of bail is not to punish an accused before his guilt is established, and deeper appreciation of evidence at this stage is neither permissible nor desirable.

14.In view of the foregoing discussion, particularly the unexplained delay in registration of the FIR, the fact that the alleged occurrence arose out of a checking operation conducted by the specialized PERA officials, the statutory scheme of the Punjab

Enforcement and Regulation Act, 2024 establishing a separate enforcement mechanism, the specific powers assigned to the Sub- Divisional Enforcement Officer and Investigation Officer regarding inquiry, registration of FIRs and investigation, the apparent non- exercise of such statutory powers by the concerned PERA officials, the absence, prima facie, of a complaint/istagasa from the concerned enforcement officer, and the unresolved question as to the authority and procedure through which the FIR came to be registered at the local police station, this Court is of the tentative view that the case of the petitioners requires further inquiry within the meaning of section 497(2), Cr.P.C. The effect, if any, of the aforesaid circumstances upon the prosecution case shall be determined by the learned trial Court after recording of evidence and shall not be prejudged at this stage.

15.For what has been discussed above, instant petition is allowed and ad-interim pre-arrest bail already granted to the petitioners vide order dated 15.07.2026 is confirmed subject to their furnishing fresh bail bonds in the sum of Rs.100,000/- each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial court. It is also made clear that observations recorded in this order are tentative in nature and shall not prejudice the case of either of parties during trial.

(SYED FARHAD ALI SHAH)

JUDGE

Approved for Reporting

JUDGE

Afzaal*