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 the course of the investigation---No statements from the witnesses or aggrieved parties, who allegedly transferred money into the petitioner's bank account, were available on the record to substantiate the allegations against him---Though the FIR contained serious allegations of large scale financial fraud involving billions of rupees, the record reflected that at the time of the petitioner's arrest, only the following amounts were recovered from his possession, 2900 USD, 66000 Kenyan currency, 18600 PKR and 480 AED---Said recovered sums were nominal, when viewed in the context of the scale of fraud alleged---Furthermore, during the petitioner's physical remand, the Investigating Officer placed on record subsequent developments that did not appear to substantially strengthen the prosecution's stance---Such glaring discrepancy between the allegations in the FIR and the evidence so far collected raised serious doubts regarding the veracity and strength of the prosecution's case against the petitioner---Section 13 of ("PECA") pertained to electronic forgery, which involved 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 of imprisonment---Section 14 deals with electronic fraud, targeting inducement into relationships or causing harm or damaged through deception, punishable by up to two years---Section 16 addressed unauthorized use of Identity Information, criminalizing the use of another person's identity without authorization, carrying a punishment of up to three years---Bare perusal of these provisions indicated that they were not intended to address financial crimes or fraudulent forex trading, which formed the crux of the prosecution's case---Thus, the petitioner's case clearly fell within the ambit of further inquiry as contemplated under subsection (2) of S.497, Cr.P.C.---As far as the remaining provisions of the P.P.C were concerned, S.406 deals with criminal breach of trust concerning entrustment, not investment---Offence under S.419 related to impersonation, which was not the prosecution case, S.420 deals with cheating, and S.468 with forgery for the purpose of cheating---Section 471 addresses the use of forged documents as genuine---Section 109 pertains to abetment and S.34 to acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention---Most of the Sections mentioned in the FIR were bailable, and though some were non-bailable, but none fell within the prohibitory clause of S.497(1), Cr.P.C.---Applicability of the said Sections and particularly the role of the present petitioner in the alleged offences, would ultimately be determined during the course of the trial---In the present case, the petitioner had no prior criminal record and had remained incarcerated since the date of his arrest---Investigation had since been completed and the petitioner was no longer required for custodial interrogation---Continued detention of petitioner, therefore, served no meaningful prosecutorial purpose---Denial of bail in such circumstances would amount to inflicting punishment prior to conviction, which the law did not permit---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