2026 PLP 620 (YLR)

Malik Javid Iqbal Wains, J.

Through this petition filed under Section 497 Cr.P.C., the petitioner, Zahid Siddique, seeks post-arrest bail in Case FIR No.45/2025 dated 25.02.2025, registered under Sections 13, 14, and 16 of the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act, 2016 read with Sections 406, 419, 420, 468, 471, 109, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 at Police Station FIA/CC, Multan, District Multan.

2. As per the contents of the crime report, a regular inquiry No.458/2024 dated 27.03.2024 was initiated on the complaint of Sajid Mehmood. The complainant alleged that his acquaintances encouraged him to invest in Venus Group of Companies, which claimed to be involved in various international businesses and offered attractive profits in U.S. Dollars. Consequently, the complainant met the Chief Operating Officers, namely Maten-ud-Din and Muhammad Rashid, at their office. They allegedly convinced him to invest by promising guaranteed returns. The complainant claimed that he transferred Rs.66,08,000/- to the company's bank account and handed over an additional Rs.60,00,000/- in cash at their office, for which receipts were issued. On 11.01.2023, co-accused Rashid Zeeshan purportedly gave a written agreement assuring that the amount would be invested in online trading. However, only Rs.94,600/-was returned, and the rest of the investment was allegedly misappropriated. During the course of the inquiry, records were obtained from the SECP, confirming the registration of six companies under Venus Group, with the petitioner named as a Director. Following this, approval for registration of the FIR was granted by the competent authority. Subsequently, the petitioner's name was placed on the Black List (No Fly List). On 24.02.2025, the petitioner attempted to leave the country via Allama Iqbal International Airport, Lahore, but was offloaded by FIA officials and handed over to the Investigating Officer. On 25.02.2025, he was formally arrested and brought to FIA CCRC Multan. During the search, mobile phones, laptops, and both local and foreign currency were recovered from his possession, the full details of which are mentioned in the FIR. The petitioner, as a Director, along with his co-accused, is alleged to have committed organized financial fraud, leading to the registration of the present FIR.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case and that no substantial evidence connects him with the alleged offence. He further argues that the FIR lacks specific details such as the date, time, and place of occurrence, and that no independent private witnesses have come forward to support the prosecution's version. These deficiencies, he submits, cast serious doubt on the veracity of the prosecution's case. Moreover, the offences involved do not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.P.C., and the petitioner is no longer required for investigation, as he has already remained in custody.

4. Conversely, the learned Law Officer, assisted by the Assistant Director/Investigating Officer of FIA, opposes the bail petition and contends that sufficient material exists against the petitioner. They pray for the dismissal of this bail application.

5. Arguments heard. Record perused.

6. Perusal of the record reveals that the crime report fails to mention the exact date and time of the alleged occurrence. Only the year 2025 is mentioned in the FIR, wherein, it was alleged that the petitioner along with co-accused partners of Venus Group of Companies, extorted large sums of money from 200 victims/persons. The Investigating Officer has not been able to produce any concrete evidence in support of these 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 are available on the record to substantiate the allegations against him.

7. On the previous date of hearing, 13.05.2025, the Investigating Officer was directed to submit a comprehensive progress report. In compliance, a detailed report specifically pertaining to the present petitioner has been placed on record. While the FIR alleges that more than 200 investors were defrauded of billions of rupees, the progress report submitted by the Investigating Officer reveals that, to date, statements have been recorded from only seven witnesses.

8. Though the FIR contains serious allegations of large scale financial fraud involving billions of rupees, the record reflects that at the time of the petitioner's arrest, only the following amounts were recovered from his possession, 2900 USD, 66000 Kenya currency, 18600 PKR and 480 AED. These recovered sums are nominal, when viewed in the context of the scale of fraud alleged.

9. Furthermore, during the petitioner's physical remand, the Investigating Officer placed on record subsequent developments that do not appear to substantially strengthen the prosecution's stance. This glaring discrepancy between the allegations in the FIR and the evidence so far collected raises serious doubts regarding the veracity and strength of the prosecution's case against the petitioner.

10. The allegations against the petitioner primarily concern his role as a Director in Venus Group of Companies, and revolve around alleged financial fraud, fraudulent forex trading scheme, and attempted smuggling. These claims are outlined in the report submitted by the Investigating Officer, which is reproduced below for a clear understanding of the prosecution's case. "Executive Summary This report comprehensively analyzes Zahid Siddique's extensive involvement in the Venus Group financial fraud. The scam, valued at approximately PKR 4 billion, involved over 200 victims and spanned national and international operations. It included fraudulent forex trading schemes, gold smuggling, and the establishment of shell companies in the UK, UAE, Pakistan, and Kenya. Zahid Siddique was responsible for establishing new offices, registering companies, and securing investments from abroad (Turkey, Iran, Ivory Coast, Ghana, Kenya, Afghanistan, and others." In light of the prosecution's case and the purposes of Sections 13, 14, and 16 of the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as ("PECA"), it is prima facie evident that the alleged offences fall outside the scope of the afore-mentioned provisions.

11. Section 13 of ("PECA") pertains to electronic forgery, which involves entering into an express or implied contract through an information system with intent to commit fraud by input, alteration, deletion, or suppression of data. The punishment prescribed is up-to three years of imprisonment. Section 14 deals with electronic fraud, targeting inducement into relationships or causing harm or damage through deception, punishable by up to two years. Section 16 addresses unauthorized use of Identity Information, criminalizing the use of another person's identity without authorization, carrying a punishment of up to three years.

12. A bare perusal of these provisions indicates that they are not intended to address financial crimes or fraudulent forex trading, which form the crux of the prosecution's case. Thus, the petitioner's case clearly falls within the ambit of further inquiry as contemplated under subsection (2) of Section 497 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898. 13. "PECA" is a special statute, enacted to tackle crimes involving cyberspace and the use of information systems. It was not designed to serve as an additional tool for investigating and prosecuting traditional or untraditional financial offences, which may incidentally involve digital components.

14. As far as the remaining provisions of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 are concerned, Section 406 deals with criminal breach of trust concerning entrustment, not investment. Offence under Section 419 relates to impersonation, which is not the prosecution case, Section 420 deals with cheating, and Section 468 with forgery for the purpose of cheating. Section 471 addresses the use of forged documents as genuine. Section 109 pertains to abetment and Section 34 to acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention. Most of the sections mentioned in the FIR are bailable, and though some are non-bailable, but none fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497(1) Cr.P.C. The applicability of the afore-mentioned sections, and particularly the role of the present petitioner in the alleged offences, will ultimately be determined during the course of the trial.

15. The prosecution's final argument, fearing repetition of the alleged offence, is based merely on apprehension. Bail cannot be denied on presumptions, as settled in the case reported as Javed Iqbal v. The State through D.A.G., Islamabad and another (2023 SCMR 401) in terms of Section 499 Cr.P.C. Considering the legal position above, this matter squarely falls within the scope of further inquiry. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in landmark cases such as Tariq Bashir and 5 others v. The State (PLD 1995 SC 34), Sheikh Abdul Raheem v. The State and another (2021 SCMR 822) and Muhammad Ramzan alias Jani v. The State and others (2020 SCMR 717) has held that the grant of bail in such cases is a rule, and refusal is an exception.

16. Moreover, the purpose of bail is to safeguard individuals from potential abuse of the legal process, particularly where guilt has yet to be established through trial. The curtailment of an accused person's liberty, protected under the Constitution, requires strong and exceptional justification. In the present case, the petitioner has no prior criminal record and has remained incarcerated since the date of his arrest. The investigation has since been completed, and the petitioner is no longer required for custodial interrogation. His continued detention, therefore, serves no meaningful prosecutorial purpose. Denial of bail in such circumstances would amount to inflicting punishment prior to conviction, which the law does not permit. Reliance is placed on Husnain Mustafa v. The State and another (2019 SCMR 1914).

17. In view of the foregoing, the instant bail petition is allowed. The petitioner is admitted to post-arrest bail, subject to furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees five lac only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court. The petitioner shall also deposit his original passport with the trial court until final adjudication of the case.

18. It is clarified that the observations made herein are tentative in nature and shall not influence the outcome of the trial.

19. The trial court is directed to expedite the proceedings and conclude the trial at the earliest. If the petitioner fails to cooperate with the court in expeditious disposal of the case, such non-cooperation shall be considered misuse of the concession of bail. In that event, the State or any aggrieved party shall be at liberty to move an application for cancellation of bail before the trial court. JK/Z-14/L Petition allowed.