Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Official Citation: 2026 LHC 4884
Court / Jurisdiction: Lahore High Court
Parties: Muhammad Usman vs The State etc.
Ruling Summary: This decision was rendered by the Lahore High Court, officially reported as 2026 LHC 4884. In this matter between Muhammad Usman and The State etc., the court adjudicated key questions of statutory construction, procedural regularity, and legal precedent under Pakistani law.
Core Holding: The honorable bench evaluated governing statutory provisions and judicial authorities to establish the rights of the parties, delivering the binding reasoning set out below.
COURT: Lahore High Court (Honorable Mr. Justice Tariq Saleem Sheikh) DECISION DATE: 17-06-2026 CASE DETAILS: Crl. Misc. 76474/25 ============================================================ Form No.HCJD/C-121 ORDER SHEET LAHORE HIGH COURT, LAHORE JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT Crl. Misc. No. 76474-B/2025 Muhammad Usman Vs. The State and another Crl. Misc. No. 20288-B/2026 Muhammad Atif Vs. The State and another S.No. of Order/ Proceeding Date of order/ proceeding Order with the signature of the Judge and that of the parties or counsel , where necessary
17.06.2026 Mian Khadim Hussain, Advocate, assisted by Mr. Ibraz Anwar Ramday, Advocate, for Petitioner Muhammad Usman in Crl. Misc. No. 76474-B/2025. Mr. Amjad Farouck Bismil Rajput, Advocate, for Petitioner Muhammad Atif in Crl. Misc. No. 20288-B/2026. Mr. Muhammad Nasim Saqlain, Assistant Attorney General with Najam Ashraf Bajwa, S.I., NCCIA. Barrister Hamza Basharat and Ch. Muhammad Umar , Advocate, for Pakistan Telecommunication Authority (PTA). Tariq Saleem Sheikh, J. – Muhammad Usman has filed Crl. Misc. No. 76474 -B/2025, while Muhammad Atif has filed Crl. Misc. No. 20288-B/2026, seeking post-arrest bail in case FIR No. 316/2025 dated 18.11.2025 registered at Police Station NCCIA, Lahore, for offences under sections 3, 4, 13, 14, 16 and 17 of the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act, 2016 (“PECA”), read with sections 4 19, 420, 468, 471 and 109 PPC. During the investigation, section 409 PPC was also added. Since both applications arise from the same FIR, they are being decided through this consolidated order. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the Zonal Director, Pakistan Telecommunication Authority (“PTA”), lodged a complaint with the NCCIA, Lahore, stating that PTA had received two complaints, one from Sultan Masood Malik and the other from Shabbir Hussain, all eging that duplicate SIMs had been fraudulently issued against their CNICs and, after activation, used for unauthorized transfer of money from their UBL accounts. PTA stated that the activity was traced to Jazz Franchise ID No. 6561, operating under the name Fine Telecom at Bahawalpur Road, Yazman, where the complainants‟ CNICs and fingerprints had been fraudulently used. PTA further stated that, according to the BVS sale record, a duplicate Crl. Misc. No. 76474-B/2025 2 Crl. Misc. No. 20288-B/2026
SIM for Sultan Masood Malik was issued on 09.11.2025 through Nadeem Super Store , after which Rs.555,000/- was transferred from his account. Similarly, a duplicate SIM for Shabbir Hussain was issued on 06.11.2025 through Muhammad Mumtaz, after which Rs.422,500/- was transferred from his account. Both retailers were linked to Jazz Franchise ID No. 6561 and BVS device bearing IMEI No. 867332036305067. Based on the said complaint, the NCCIA registered Enquiry No. 6312/2025 dated 13.11.2025 , and the reafter FIR No. 316/2025 dated 18.11.2025. 3. On 18.11.2025, after obtaining a search warrant from the competent court, a joint team of the NCCIA and PTA raided the premises of Fine Telecom. The team recovered two SIM scanners, one BVS device, one CPU, one laptop and 150 SIM cards described as suspicious, besides mobile phones. Muha mmad Usman was apprehended at the spot along with Nayyar Abbas, Sales and Distribution Manager, and Muhammad Riaz. The franchise is in the name of Muhammad Usman ‟s father, Dilawar Hussain. The prosecution maintains that Muhammad Usman was operating it, whi le he disputes any operational role. 4. During the investigation, four additional affected account holders were identified. The prosecution alleges that an aggregate amount of Rs.10,458,500/- was fraudulently transferred from the UBL accounts of six victims. It further alleges that the victims‟ confidential banking information, including their registered mobile numbers, was unlawfully obtained and exploited. Their original SIMs were blocked, duplicate SIMs were issued through the BVS system, new devices were registered to access mobile banking services, and funds were transferred to beneficiary accounts. 5. UBL‟s Fraud Risk Management Division (“FRMD”) conducted an in -house inquiry into the disputed transactions and prepared reports dated 30.12.2025 and 29.05.2026, whic h were furnished to the Investigating Officer. The first report related to the six accounts involved in the present case, while the second examined a broader set of complaints. According to these reports, confidential Crl. Misc. No. 76474-B/2025 3 Crl. Misc. No. 20288-B/2026
customer information had been leaked o r otherwise compromised through insider access, and account -access logs showed suspicious activity by bank staff in relation to the affected accounts. 6. Muhammad Atif was nominated as an accused during the investigation, and section 409 PPC was added to the case. 7. The record also refers to Muhammad Ahsan Khalidi in relation to access to customer accounts, but no bail application on his behalf is before this Court. Muhammad Mumtaz and Muhammad Umar Khan are stated to be absconding, while the beneficiar y account holders identified during the investigation have not yet joined the proceedings. Co -accused Muhammad Riaz and Nayyar Abbas were admitted to post -arrest bail by the Additional Sessions Judge vide orders dated 20.01.2026 and 29.01.2026, respectively. Submissions on behalf of Muhammad Usman 8. Mian Khadim Hussain, Advocate, submitted that Muhammad Usman is a student and neither the owner nor an employee of Fine Telecom, which stands in the name of his father, Dilawar Hussain. Muhammad Usman‟s mere presence at the franchise when it was raided, he argued, does not establish that he managed or controlled it, or that he had any involvement in the alleged offences. Counsel further submitted that the two duplicate SIMs referred to in the FIR were issued th rough Nadeem Super Store and Muhammad Mumtaz, not by Muhammad Usman. According to him, the mere fact that those retailers were linked with Jazz Franchise ID No. 6561 does not establish Muhammad Usman‟s complicity in the disputed SIM activations. 9. Mr. Mi an further argued that the BVS device bearing IMEI No. 867332036305067, allegedly used for the issuance of the duplicate SIMs, was not recovered from the Petitioner. It was the prosecution‟s own case that it had remained with Muhammad Mumtaz and was later returned to Jazz. Counsel submitted that a BVS device functions only within a limited radius and requires biometric verification. He argued that the duplicate SIMs were activated while Crl. Misc. No. 76474-B/2025 4 Crl. Misc. No. 20288-B/2026
the device was in J hang, whereas the CDR of the Petitioner and his father does not show their presence there. Mr. Mian further submitted that the articles recovered during the raid, namely SIM scanners, one BVS device, a CPU, a laptop and SIM cards, were ordinary franchise stock. According to him, there is no forensic report to show that the recovered SIM cards were illegally activated or used in the commission of the offence. He added that no proceeds of crime have been traced to the Petitioner. 10. Mr. Mian finally submitted that the provisions of the PPC could not be invoked alongside PECA, and placed reliance upon Sheraz Khan v. The State and others (2022 PCr.LJ 203) and Javad Khan v. The State and others (2023 PCr.LJ 1092). He further argued that none of the offences inv oked in the FIR falls within the prohibitory clause of section 497(1) Cr.P.C. and that, in any case, the Petitioner is entitled to the benefit of the rule of consistency because co-accused Muhammad Riaz and Nayy ar Abbas have already been admitted to post -arrest bail. Reliance was placed, inter alia , upon Tariq Bashir and others v. The State (PLD 1995 SC 34), Shahzad v. The Stat e and another (2023 SCMR 679), Syed Muhammad Ali Jaferi v. The Stat e and another (2025 SCMR 838), and Abdul Mateen Mehboob v. The State (2026 SCMR 135). Submissions on behalf of Muhammad Atif 11. Mr. Amjad Farouck Bismil Rajput, Advocate, counsel for Muhammad Atif, submitted that the Petitioner was not named in the FIR and was nominated during the investigation without any independent incriminating evidence. He contended that there was no basis to connect the Petitioner w ith the persons who issued the duplicate SIMs or with those who received the proceeds of the fraud. No CDR, chat record or other connecting evidence has been produced in that regard. Nor, according to counsel, is there any evidence that the Petitioner himself received any benefit from the alleged fraud. 12. Referring to the FRMD reports, Mr. Rajput submitted that the access logs, even if taken at face value, show only access to Crl. Misc. No. 76474-B/2025 5 Crl. Misc. No. 20288-B/2026
certain customer accounts. Standing alone, they do not show disclosure of infor mation, participation in the SIM -swap process, or sharing in the proceeds of crime. Counsel maintained that the Petitioner had explained that the accounts were accessed for verification of contact numbers at the request of Muhammad Fayyaz, who dealt in UBL Omni services. 13. Mr. Rajput finally submitted that the offences alleged fall outside the prohibitory clause of section 497(1) Cr.P.C. and that the Petitioner‟s case is, in any event, one of further inquiry within the meaning of section 497(2) Cr.P.C. R eliance was placed, amongst others, upon Ahmad Khalid Butt v. The State (2021 SCMR 1016), Zeeshan v. The State (2024 SCMR 1716) and Muhammad Tanveer v. The State (PLD 2017 SC 733). Submissions on behalf of the State 14. Mr. Muhammad Nasim Saqlain, Assista nt Attorney General (AAG), opposed both applications. He submitted that the case relates to an organized cybercrime in which confidential banking information was allegedly obtained, genuine SIMs were blocked, duplicate SIMs were issued, new devices were re gistered for mobile banking, and funds were transferred through beneficiary accounts. According to him, these acts were not isolated but formed part of a coordinated scheme in which different individuals performed distinct yet interdependent roles. He main tained that the evidence collected during the investigation connected both Petitioners to that scheme. He further submitted that, in white -collar and cybercrime cases, the proceeds are often disbursed in cash or routed through multiple accounts. Therefore, the absence of a complete money trail was not, by itself, sufficient to justify the grant of bail. 15. As regards Muhammad Atif, the AAG submitted that UBL‟s inquiry and the NCCIA investigation show that he accessed confidential customer information rela ting to the affected accounts and leaked it. He contended that, by virtue of section 27(2) of PECA, customer data constitutes “property” for the purposes of section 405 Crl. Misc. No. 76474-B/2025 6 Crl. Misc. No. 20288-B/2026
PPC. Since Muhammad Atif allegedly had access to, and dominion over, such data in the c ourse of his banking functions, he submitted that section 409 PPC was attracted, which brings the case within the prohibitory clause of section 497(1) Cr.P.C. 16. Insofar as Muhammad Usman is concerned , the AAG submitted that, although the franchise stood in the name of his father, the investigation showed that Muhammad Usman was managing its affairs. According to him, the two points of sale from which the duplicate SIMs were issued, as well as the relevant BVS d evice, were linked with Jazz Franchise ID No. 6561. He further submitted that Muhammad Usman had either provided the disputed BVS device to Muhammad Mumtaz or arranged for its use. On that basis, he argued that Muhammad Usman was connected with the SIM -swap component of the alleged scheme and that section 109 PPC was attracted. 17. Barrister Hamza Basharat, counsel for PTA, supplemented the submissions of the AAG. He submitted that the sale and activation of SIMs is governed by a regulatory framework that requires verification of the subscriber‟s antecedents and biometric authentication through the NADRA database before a duplicate SIM is issued. According to him, the allegations in the present case show that these safeguards were circumvented. He argued th at the BVS device bearing IMEI No. 867332036305067 had been tampered with, operated at a reduced frequency, or used through a VPN or other technological means to defeat territorial restrictions. He maintained that the evidence collected during the investig ation was sufficient, at least tentatively, to connect both Petitioners with their respective roles in the alleged scheme. 18. I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the record with their able assistance. A court hearing a bail application makes only a tentative assessment of the factual record. It does not undertake a detailed appraisal of the evidence or return findings that may prejudice the trial. Where, however, the decision Crl. Misc. No. 76474-B/2025 7 Crl. Misc. No. 20288-B/2026
turns on statutory interpretation, the court must undertake that exercise to the extent necessary. Statutory scheme 19. The Petitioners are being prosecuted under sections 3, 4, 13, 14, 16 and 17 of PECA, read with sections 409, 419, 420, 468, 471 and 109 PPC. PECA was enacted to prevent electronic crimes and to provide for related mechanisms of investigation, prosecution and trial. It creates special offences pertaining to unauthorized access, copying or transmission of data, ele ctronic forgery, electronic fraud, misuse of identity information and unlawful issuance of SIM cards. The original statute was amended by the Prevention of Electronic Crimes (Amendment) Act, 2025, which came into force on 29.01.2025. As the occurrence from which the present case arises took place in October - November 2025, the amended Act applies. Under section 43 of PECA, as amended, the offences under sections 13 and 14, and abetment thereof, are non -bailable, non-compoundable and cognizable. Except for se ction 409 PPC, none of the offences invoked carries a punishment attracting the prohibitory clause of section 497(1) Cr.P.C. It is thus necessary to examine whether section 409 PPC is prima facie attracted in either case. Before doing so, the objection tha t the PPC cannot be invoked alongside PECA may be addressed. 20. The objection is founded principally on Sheraz Khan v. The State and others (2022 PCr.LJ 203) and Javad Khan v. The State and others (2023 PCr.LJ 1092) . The contention, so stated, is too broad. Section 50(1) of PECA provides that the Act shall have effect “not in derogation of” the Pakistan Penal Code, the Code of Criminal Procedure and the Qanun -e-Shahadat, 1984, amongst other laws. Section 27(1) further provides that an offence under PECA o r any other law shall not be denied legal recognition and enforcement merely because it was committed in relation to, or through the use of, an information system. Section 28 applies the provisions of the PPC, to the extent not inconsistent with PECA, to o ffences under the Act. Section 50(2) gives PECA overriding effect against other laws on the same subject, but makes that effect expressly subject to Crl. Misc. No. 76474-B/2025 8 Crl. Misc. No. 20288-B/2026
sub-section (1). The cumulative effect of these provisions is that PECA does not exclude the substantive a pplication of the PPC where the ingredients of an offence under the PPC are otherwise disclosed. 21. In Sheraz Khan, the petitioner had sought post -arrest bail in a case registered under sections 13, 14 and 16 of PECA read with sections 109, 419, 420, 468 and 471 PPC. The application was ultimately allowed because none of those offences fell within the prohibitory clause of section 497(1) Cr.P.C. and the petitioner was no longer required for investigation. The exte nded discussion on the relationship between PECA and the PPC was not essential to that conclusion. Importantly, paragraph 11 of that judgment observed that the applicability of the PPC offences along with PECA would be determined by the trial court after r ecording evidence. Sheraz Khan, therefore, does not lay down an absolute rule that the PPC is excluded whenever PECA is attracted. In that case, section 26 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, was relied upon for the view that offences falling under different enactments should be tried separately. With respect, section 26 does not , by itself, require separate trials. It permits prosecution and punishment under any of the relevant enactments, while prohibiting double punishment for the same offence. In any event, for the purposes of the present bail applications, it is unnecessary to decide the forum or manner in which PECA and PPC offences may be tried together, for that question does not arise here. 22. Javad Khan was decided by the Islamabad High Court on a constitutional petition seeking quashing of an FIR registered by FIA under section 14 of PECA read with sections 419 and 420 PPC. The questions considered there were whether FIA, as the investigation agency designated under section 29 of PECA, could invest igate offences under the PPC; whether the addition of cognizable PPC offences could enable FIA to register an FIR in respect of a non - cognizable PECA offence without prior permission of the court; and whether a court designated under section 44 of PECA could jointly try offences under PECA and the PPC. The ratio of the judgment was, therefore, confined to the authority of FIA under the then existing Crl. Misc. No. 76474-B/2025 9 Crl. Misc. No. 20288-B/2026
statutory framework, the cognizance of a non -cognizable PECA offence, and the forum of trial. It did not deci de that the same acts may not, in substance, constitute offences both under PECA and under the PPC where the ingredients of each offence are otherwise disclosed. Indeed, paragraph 20 of the judgment expressly recognizes that the acts attributed to the petitioner also constituted offences under the PPC and that the complainant could approach the police for registration of an FIR under the Code of Criminal Procedure. The judgment thus does not support the proposition that the substantive applicability of the PPC is excluded merely because the same acts also attract PECA. Importantly, Javad Khan did not examine the effect of section 27(2) of PECA upon an offence concerning property. 23. The statutory framework has since undergone material change through the Pr evention of Electronic Crimes (Amendment) Act, 2025. Sheraz Khan and Javad Khan were decided before that amendment. They do not advance the Petitioners‟ objection in the present case. Does customer data constitute “property” 24. Criminal breach of trust is, in its essence, an offence concerning property. Section 405 PPC defines the offence. It is attracted where a person entrusted with property, or having dominion over it, dishonestly misappropriates, converts, uses or disposes of that property in violati on of a direction of law prescribing the mode in which the trust is to be discharged, or of a legal contract, express or implied, touching the discharge of that trust. “Dishonestly”, as defined in section 24 PPC, requires an intention to cause wrongful gai n or wrongful loss. 25. Section 2(1)(xiii) of PECA defines “data” to include content data, and section 2(1)(viii) defines “content data” to include any representation of fact, information or concept for processing in an information system. Customer record s maintained in a bank‟s core banking system, including account particulars and registered mobile numbers, fall within the statutory concept of data. Section 27(2) Crl. Misc. No. 76474-B/2025 10 Crl. Misc. No. 20288-B/2026
provides that “references to „property‟ in any law creating an offence in relation to or con cerning property shall include information system and data.” Therefore, by force of section 27(2), such data constitute s “property” for the purposes of sections 405 to 409 PPC. 26. It follows that where customer data is entrusted to a bank employee, or is under his dominion, and he dishonestly discloses or uses it without authority in furtherance of a fraudulent scheme, such conduct may, in an appropriate case, amount to criminal breach of trust. It would also be contrary to the duties of confidentiality a nd fidelity arising from banking employment and reinforced by section 33A of the Banking Companies Ordinance, 1962. 27. Section 41 of PECA may also be noticed. It punishes unauthorized disclosure of material or data containing personal information by a pe rson, including a service provider, who has secured access to it while providing services under a lawful contract or otherwise in accordance with law, or by an authorized officer. The provision applies where such disclosure is made, otherwise than where required by law, without the consent of the person concerned or in breach of a lawful contract, and with the intent, or knowledge of likelihood, to cause harm, wrongful loss or gain, or to compromise the confidentiality of such material or data. Section 41 of PECA addresses an offence distinct from criminal breach of trust under section 405 PPC. The latter requires entrustment with property, or dominion over it, followed by dishonest misappropriation, conversion, use or disposal of that property in violation of law or contract. Section 41 of PECA does not exclude the application of section 405 PPC where the ingredients of that offence are otherwise disclosed. Can a bank employee fall within section 409 PPC? 28. This is the central question in Muhammad Atif ‟s application. Chapter XVII of the PPC calibrates the punishment for criminal breach of trust by reference to the capacity in which the offender is entrusted with property or with dominion over it. Section 406 punishes the offence simpliciter with imprisonme nt which may Crl. Misc. No. 76474-B/2025 11 Crl. Misc. No. 20288-B/2026
extend to seven years. Section 408 punishes a clerk or servant entrusted in such capacity with imprisonment which may extend to seven years. Section 409 punishes a public servant, and a person entrusted with property or with dominion over property “in the way of his business as a banker, merchant, factor, broker, attorney or agent”, with imprisonment for life or imprisonment which may extend to ten years. Of the three, only section 409 attracts the prohibitory clause of section 497(1) Cr.P.C. 29. Muhammad Atif is stated to be an employee of a private banking company and not a public servant. The issue is whether an employee who deals with banking business and, by virtue of his functions, is entrusted with customer data or has dominion over it, falls within section 409 PPC, or whether his case would instead attract section 408 PPC as that of a clerk or servant. The answer cannot rest on designation alone. It turns on the meaning of the expression “in the way of his business as a banker” in section 409 PPC. 30. The word “banker” is not defined in the PPC. Black ‟s Law Dictionary, 12th Edition, p.178, defines a banker as “(i) someone who engages in the business of banking, (ii) an officer or owner of a bank; less commonly, anyone employed at a bank in a nonmenial position.” The qualifying words “less commonly” are important. They indicate that employment in a bank alone is insufficient. An employee may fall within the description of a banker only where, having regard to the nature of his position and functions, he is engaged in the business of banking in a meaningful sense. Section 3(b) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, defines a “banker” as a person transacting the business of accepting, for lending or investment, deposits of money from the pu blic, repayable on demand or otherwise withdrawable by cheque, draft, order or otherwise, and includes any Post Office Savings Bank. This definition is enacted for the purposes of that Act. It cannot be imported into the PPC because, under a settled rule o f interpretation, a word defined in one statute ordinarily bears that meaning only for that statute, unless the other statute expressly adopts that definition or the context necessarily requires Crl. Misc. No. 76474-B/2025 12 Crl. Misc. No. 20288-B/2026
such adoption. That definition may, nevertheless, be noticed as reflecting the ordinary legal conception of banking business. In United Dominions Trust Ltd v. Kirkwood , [1966] 2 Q.B. 431, Lord Denning M.R. identified three characteristics usually found in bankers: they accept money from customers and collect…
Read the unabridged text and precedent citation network on Al Wakeelo Legal Research Platform.