Faraz Ahmad Vs The State etc

Form No: HCJD/C-121

ORDER SHEET

IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, LAHORE.

(JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT)

Crl. Misc. No.24117-B of 2026.

Faraz Ahmad Versus The State, etc.

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

13.10.2026. Mr. Hassan Iqbal Jafferi, Advocate with the petitioner in all connected matters.

Mr. Hamaad Iftikhar Syed, DDPP with Zahid and Sarfraz S.I & Ijaz ASI.

M/s. Ikram Ullah Bhatti and Faisal Hanif Garewal, Advocates for the complainant.

Hafiz Ahmed Hassan SDO Kierna, Irrigation Department, Sargodha.

Mr. Nauman Azam Deputy Director, Mines & Mineral Sargodha.

1.This single order shall dispose of (i) Crl. Misc. No.24117-B of 2026, (ii) Crl. Misc. No.24115-B of 2026, and (iii) Crl. Misc. No.24119-B of 2026, filed by Faraz Ahmad (petitioner), who seeks pre-arrest bail in three criminal cases [1] registered against him at Police Station Sillanwali, District Sargodha, for offences under Sections 163-A and 165 of the Punjab Irrigation, Drainage and River Act 2023, and Sections 440, 431, 429, 147 and 149 PPC.

2.(i). The allegations, in precise, as unfolded by the complainant in FIR No.104/26, are that on the intervening night of 07/08.02.2026, the petitioner, Faraz Ahmad, with the help of the co-accused, got discharged polluted and poisonous water in Kierna Canal of the Irrigation Department illegally, which was harmful for public health.

(ii). As per the allegations levelled in FIR No.107/26 by the complainant (Muhammad Razzaq), in the night of 07.02.2026, a massive surge of [ ] (i) FIR No.104/26 dated 12.02.2026, (ii) FIR No.107/26 dated 12.02.2026, and (iii) FIR No.92/26 dated 10.02.2026,

contaminated water flooded into his agricultural land, due to which his crops and his cattle (a few died and some became ill), worth millions of rupees (approx. Rs.26,00,000/- for the crops), as well as his two houses having installed two peter engines, got destroyed in the said incident.

(iii). FIR No.92/26 was lodged by the complainant namely Hamid Iqbal, who alleged that in the night of 07.02.2026, due to a massive flow of water, the electric panel board of the plant, electric motors, loader, tractor-trolley tires and other valuable articles belonging to him, amounting to Rs.48,40,000/-, were damaged in the said incident.

3.Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in these cases with ulterior motives and mala fide intent. He submits that the occurrence resulted from a sudden breach of a temporary water- storage pond, caused by an accumulation of excess water, and that the petitioner has no concern with it in any manner. He further contends that the petitioner is not a lease holder of any of the sites in question and has nothing to do with the alleged incident. Lastly, he argues that the complainants nominated the petitioner after a considerable and unexplained delay, which shows that the implication is an afterthought

4.Conversely, the learned Law Officer, assisted by learned counsel for the complainants, opposes these petitions on different grounds, with the sole allegation that immense damage to their properties has been caused; that the petitioner is specifically nominated in the FIRs; that he, with the co-accused, intentionally caused breaching in the pond with an excavator; that he failed to point out any mala fide

against any of the complainants; and that recovery of the excavator is yet to be effected from the petitioner. Lastly, he contends that it is a crime against society in which hundreds of acres of agricultural land got destroyed and cattle died and suffered, and that the petitioner does not deserve the extraordinary concession of bail before arrest.

5.Heard. Record perused.

6.There is no denial of the fact that grant of pre-arrest bail is an extra ordinary remedy in criminal jurisdiction; it is diversion of usual course of law, arrest in cognizable cases; a protection to the innocent being hounded on trump up charges through abuse of process of law, therefore, a petitioner seeking judicial protection is required to reasonably demonstrate that intended arrest is calculated to humiliate him with taints of mala fide; it is not a substitute for post arrest bail in every run of the mill criminal case as it seriously hampers the course of the investigation. Ever since the advent of Hidayat Ullah Khan’s case (PLD 1949 Lahore 21), the principles of judicial protection are being faithfully adhered to till date, therefore, grant of pre- arrest bail essentially requires considerations of mala fide, ulterior motive or abuse of process of law, situations wherein Court must not hesitate to rescue innocent citizens. [2]. So, in light of the principles enshrined therein, the instant petitions are decided.

7.This Court observed that the incident broke out in the night time at 2:10 AM on 08.02.2026, as finds mention in another FIR No.87/2026, lodged by Rizwan Saeed (of the Mines & Mineral Department, Sargodha Region) by reporting the matter to the police about breaching in a dam without nominating [ ] Rana Abdul Khaliq versus The State and others (2019 SCMR 1129), Muhammad Sadiq and others versus The State and another (2015 SCMR 1394), and Ghulam Farooq Channa versus Special Judge Ace (Central-1) Karachi and another (PLD 2020 Supreme Court 293)

any person. However, FIR No.92/2026 got lodged on 10.02.2026 (after three days of the occurrence) by one Javed Iqbal/present complainant, in which he nominated the present petitioner and his father, Pervaiz Bhatti, along with 6/7 unknown persons for making a breach in the dam with the help of an excavator on 07.02.2026. Similarly, another FIR No.107/2026 was lodged on 12.02.2026 (after five days) by Muhammad Razzaq, again nominating the present petitioner and his father with the same allegations but with a different amount of loss. The report of the Mines and Irrigation Departments confirms that the unfortunate accident occurred in Chak No.126 and 123 (South, respectively), where one of the causes, amongst other factors, could be of discharging water in a temporary water pond, where the following six lease holders are doing mineral extractions:

1.Sand stone Block No.(11+12, A+B-1)/126 (Sufi Muhammad Anwar son of Siraj Din).

2.Sand stone Block No.(11+12, A+B-2)/126 (Zia Ullah Khan son of Khan Bahadar Khan).

3.Sand stone Block No.(10-A)/126 (Ch. Muhammad Hanif son of M. Yousaf).

4.Sand stone Block No.(10-B)/126 (M/s. Core Enterprises).

5.Sand stone Block No.(14)/126 (Sarmad Tufail s/o Qurban Hussain Cheema).

6.Sand stone Block No.(4-A+4-B)/126 (Muhammad Bashir s/o Muhammad Rafique); the previous lease holder was Ans Zaheer.

And due to drilling deep underground for mining in the last several decades, the said area became a pit (pond shape), and the said lessees, facing difficulties in draining out stone/mining, without any prior permission and with mutual consent amongst them, got converted the said place upon a temporary arrangement and started using it as a water storage pond in sandstone Block No.126 (14); and also, due to heavy rainfalls in those days, the retaining walls of the embankment were weakened. It further transpires

Crl. Misc. No.24117-B of 2026 5

that the maintenance and supervision of the said water pond was the responsibility of the said lessees, who failed to maintain the same. Moreover, as per the Mining record, the present petitioner, Faraz Ahmed, is neither a lease holder of any sand stone block nor the owner of any hill; it further mentions that the lease of the co-accused, Pervaiz Bhatti, expired in the year 2024, and he has also been found not involved by the police in the occurrence. [3]. During the course of investigation, the 6/7 unknown accused persons who allegedly took active participation in the said occurrence have not been found so far. The questions as to how the embankment breached, whether the alleged damage was caused by any deliberate act attributable to the petitioner or to the lease holders of the said Block, to what extent loss occurred, or whether any individual can be held liable for such destruction, could not be determined at this stage without a final assessment of the evidence by the learned trial Court. The allegations, therefore, require a deep examination of the material collected by the investigating agency and the reports submitted by different Government Departments in this regard. The submissions made by learned counsel for the complainant can be considered at the trial stage. The co-accused, namely Pervaiz Mustafa Bhatti (father of the petitioner), has been declared innocent during the investigation. Furthermore, no concrete investigation has been conducted by the Investigating Officers, as none from the aforementioned six lease holders has been made to join the investigation by the Investigating Officer of these cases.

8.The facts highlighted in the preceding paragraph raise the possibility of the petitioner’s false implication by the complainants with an ulterior [ ] This fact has been recorded in case diary (Zimni) No.08 dated 13.04.2026

Crl. Misc. No.24117-B of 2026 6

motive, which cannot be ruled out and calls for further inquiry. Although the record reflects that the petitioner is not a lease holder of any of the sand stone blocks in question, he has been nominated in multiple FIRs arising out of the same incident, and the likelihood of his humiliation at the hands of the police in these circumstances cannot be ignored. In these circumstances, the extent of the present petitioner’s role, if any, in the commission of the alleged offence can only be determined by the learned trial Court after the evidence has been recorded.

9.For the above reasons, this petition is accepted, and the ad-interim pre-arrest bail already granted to the petitioner is confirmed, subject to his furnishing fresh bail bonds in the sum of Rs.10,00,000/- (one million rupees) with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court. 10.While concluding this order, it is clarified that, in deciding these petitions, certain facts of the case have been considered only in order to arrive at a conclusion in accordance with the settled principles governing pre-arrest bail. This aspect has been dilated upon by the august Supreme Court of Pakistan, in Muhammad Azam’s case [4], and it was settled that the observations made in an order granting or refusing bail have no effect on the merits of the case in any subsequent proceedings. Further, in Dr. Muhammad Islam’s case [5] The apex Court has been pleased to postulate that the observations made in orders passed on bail applications are always tentative in nature and, as such, cannot be relied upon by the parties to seek the conviction or [ ] Muhammad Azam v. The State through P.G. Punjab and another

(2022 S C M R 2142)

[ ] Dr. Muhammad Islam, Instructor, Animal Husbandry In-Service Training Institute, Daudzai, Peshawar District v. Government of N.- W.F.P. through Secretary, Food, Agriculture, Livestock and Cooperative Department, Peshawar and 2 others (1998 P L C (C.S.) 1430)

acquittal of the accused and the bail orders are always treated to be non-existent for the purpose of the trial of the accused. In this backdrop, it is explained that the observations made herein are purely tentative in nature and strictly confined to the disposal of these bail petitions. The learned trial Court is at liberty to conduct the trial in accordance with the relevant procedural and substantive laws, uninfluenced by these observations, while adhering to the principles of fair trial and due process enshrined in Article 10-A of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973.

(Khalid Ibn-i-Aziz) Judge

Approved for Reporting

Judge

Umar Hayat*