Zahid Siddique vs State S — 2026 YLR 620 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

Zahid Siddique VS State S. 497(2)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 419, 420, 468, 471, 406, 109 & 34---Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act (XL of 2016), Ss. 13, 14 & 16---Use of a forged document as genuine, cheating by personation, cheating and dishonestly inducing someone to deliver property, forgery for the purpose of cheating, abetment, common intention, electronic forgery and fraud, unauthorized use of identity information---Bail, grant of---Further inquiry--- Allegation against the accused-petitioner was that he misappropriated the invested amount of complainant---Perusal of the record revealed that the crime report failed to mention the exact date and time of the alleged occurrence---Only the year 2025 was mentioned in the FIR, wherein it was alleged that the petitioner along with co-accused partners of "V" Group of Companies, extorted large sums of money from 200 victims/persons---Investigating Officer had not been able to produce any concrete evidence in support of those claims during investigation---No statements from witnesses or aggrieved parties, who allegedly transferred money into the petitioner's bank account, were available on record to substantiate the allegations against him--- Although FIR contained serious allegations of large-scale financial fraud involving billions of rupees, the record reflected that at the time of petitioner's arrest only amounts recovered from his possession were 2900 USD, 66000 Kenyan currency, 18600 PKR and 480 AED---The recovered sums were nominal considering the scale of fraud alleged--- Furthermore, during physical remand, subsequent developments placed on record by the Investigating Officer did not substantially strengthen the prosecution case---Such discrepancy between allegations in FIR and evidence collected created serious doubts regarding prosecution case--- Section 13 of PECA related to electronic forgery involving entering into an express or implied contract through an information system with intent to commit fraud by input, alteration, deletion or suppression of data---Punishment prescribed was up to three years imprisonment---Section 14 dealt with electronic fraud and Section 16 dealt with unauthorized use of identity information--- Bare reading of these provisions showed that they were not intended to deal with financial crimes or fraudulent forex trading, which formed the basis of prosecution case--- Section 406 PPC dealt with criminal breach of trust concerning entrustment and not investment---Section 419 related to impersonation, which was not the prosecution case---Section 420 dealt with cheating and Section 468 with forgery for purpose of cheating---Section 471 related to use of forged documents as genuine---Section 109 dealt with abetment and Section 34 with common intention--- Most sections mentioned in FIR were bailable and remaining non-bailable offences did not fall within prohibitory clause of S.497(1), Cr.P.C.---Applicability of said provisions and role of petitioner would ultimately be determined during trial--- Petitioner had no previous criminal record and had remained incarcerated since arrest---Investigation had been completed and petitioner was no longer required for custodial interrogation---Continued detention would amount to punishment before conviction, which was not permissible in law--- Bail petition was allowed, in circumstances.

Zahid Siddique vs State S — 2026 YLR 620 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2026 YLR