\ .
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN
(Appellate Jurisdiction)
PRESENT:
MR. JUSTICE MAZHAR ALAM IUMN MIANKHEL
MR. JUSTICE JAMAL KHAN MANDOKHAIL
Criminal Petition Nos.149-L & 150-L OF 2022
(On appeal against the judgment dated
24.12.2021 passed by the Lahore High Court,
La/wi-c in Cr!. Misc.Nos 27057-B of 2021)
I
Zaheer Ahmad (CrLf-' 149-L122)
Shiraz Ahmed 'CrLP.I50-11122
The State, etc. (in both cases)
For the Petitioner(s)
(in both cases)
For the State
For the Complainant
Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
Respondent(s)
Sh. Usman Karim-ud--Din, ASC
Miss Hina Jilani, ASC
Mr. Arshad Nazir Mirza, ASC
Mirza Mehmood Ahmed, ASC
Syed Nayyab Hussain Gerdezi, DAG
Mehrnood-uI-Hasan, D.D.(FJA)
Mudassar Shah, D.D. (HA)
Navced Aslam, S.I. (HA)
Mr. Muhammad Shahid Tasawar, ASC
Date of Hearing 
2104.2022
ORDER
fviazliar Atarn Khan IVijankliel, J. Petitioners Shiraz
Ahinad and Zaheer Ahmed have impugned the order dated 24.12.2021,
whereby bail hi case FIR No. 88 dated 20.06.2019, offence under
sections 295-A, 298-C PPC and section 11 of the Prevention of
Electronic Crimes Act, 2016, (sections 295-B, 295-C, 34 and 109 PPC
added later on) was refused to them by the learned Lahore High Court,
 
Lahore.
Cr1s11149-L ISQ-L/2022 
2
2. The allegation against the petitioners, as per contents of
FIR, is that they in collusion with their co-accused formed a WhatsApp
in the name of Sindh Salamat for propagation of Quadiani faith by
forwarding material and translation of Holy Quran proscribed by the
government. The complainant Muhammad Irfan alleged that the accused
had added him up in that WhatsApp soup with ulterior motive. On the
basis of material shared by the petitioners and received by the
complainant, the taller lodged a complaint with the FIA, whereupon an
enquiry was ordered to be conducted into the matter. Per FIR, on
27.062019, the PIA raided the house of Mehmood lqbal 1-Jashmi, co-
accused of the petitioners and arrested him while recovering his Cell No.
03009468153. It was found that proscribed translation of Holy Quran
was uploaded to Sindh Group from that mobile. Petitioner Shiraz Ahmed
was arrested from his village Chak Chatha, Tehsil and District
Hafizabad, where he was allegedly busy in his propagation. A cell phone,
laptop, proscribed books and certain other material was recovered from
him. During investigation of Shiraz Ahmed, he disclosed that it was
petitioner Zaheer Ahmed, who provided him banned content through
WhatsApp No. 03218808063. Zaheer Ahmed was already confined in
Camp Jail, Lahore in some other case. He was arrested in the instant case
on 27.02.2021.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contend that the very
antecedents of the complainant are not clean and he is used to of being an
accomplice in cases against the persons belonging to Ahmedis. To
substantiate the contention, they referred to case FIR No. 245 of 2037
dated 15.03.2017, wherein the complainant was a witness. They
3
01.,.) 4 9-L. & 150-1/2022
contended that name of petitioner Shiraz Ahmed, though, mentioned in
the FIR but no specific role has been assigned to him. According to
them, the name of petitioner Zahir Ahmed has not at all been mentioned
in the FIR and it seems that both the petitioners have been implicated in
this case only due to their religious beliefs. On merits, the learned
counsel argued that the enquiry into the matter started way back in 2019
and since then the personal cell phone of co-accused Mehrnood Jqbal
Hash'ni remained in the custody of FIA and there was likelihood of its
tampering in ordcr to connect and book the petitioners in this case.
According to them, Sindh Sa/amat Group was only meant for people
belonging to Quadiani faith and there were almost forty other persons as
members of the Group; that the petitioner Shiraz Ahmed was just one of
the Administrators of the group and he had nothing to do with sharing of
proscribed and banned material in that Group because every member of
the Group was free to share whatever he wanted. They maintained that
mischief of sections 295-A, 295-B and 295-C PPC and section 11 of
PECA are not at all attracted to the facts and circumstances of the present
case and those sections have been added in the FIR in order to bring the
ease of petitioners within prohibitory clause. It was further argued that at
the most, section 9 of the Punjab Holy Quran (Printing and Recording)
Ac, 2011 is attracted to the case of petitioners.
4. Learned counsel for the complainant and learned Deputy
Attorney General, on the other land, opposed the prayer of the
petitioners for bail and contended that there was sufficient incriminating
material in documentary shape available oil
 
to connect the
 
petitioners with [lie alleged olience; that forensic analysis of the cell
I
­I SA 49-L , 150-112022 
4
phones and material recovered from them was conducted and the report
of the forensic lab fully endorses the case of prosecution against the
petitioners; that the WhatsApp group formed by the petitioners was not
confined to Ahmedis community only and the inclusion of complainant
in that group shows that the group was being used for dissemination of
proscribed and banned material of the Abniedis community in public at
large; that the contention of learned counsel for the petitioners that
sections 295-A, 295-B, 295-C PPC and section 11 of PECA are not
attracted in the present case and case of the petitioners is covered under
section 9 of the Punjab Holy Quran (Printing and Recording) Act, 2011,
being a special law, is totally misconceived because the object and
purpose of latter law is obvious from its very preamble, wherein it is
mentioned that the law was promulgated to ensure error-free publication
of the Book and proper disposal of its damaged and worn out copies. He
added that perusal of the whole Qum Act would lead us to a conclusion
that it is meant for printers and publishers and not for ordinary accused.
To sum up the arguments, learned counsel for the complainant and
earned Law Officer stated that even otherwise all the contentions of
learned counsel for the petitioners amount to deeper appreciation of
evidence, which is not desirable at bail stage; that charge has already
been framed and it would be more appropriate to let the trial court decide
the case after scrutinizing evidence adduced by both the parties as any
observation at this stage by this Court on the contentions raised by the
petitioners would seriously prejudice the case of either of the party.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused
the available record. Petitioner Shiraz Ahmed is nominated in the FIR. It
n,sP.149L 15G-L/2022 
5
has not been denied by the petitioners' side that petitioner Shiraz Ahmed
was one of the administrators of the WhatsApp Group Sindh Salamat
along with co-accused Mebmood lqbal Hashmi and forty other persons
were also members of the Group. During the course of arguments,
learned counsel for the complainant and learned Deputy Attorney
General have pointed out the proscribed book Rohani Khazain and
banned text and translation of Holy Qum shared in the Group Sindh
Salamat. The learned Law Officer under instructions of the investigating
officers present with record has confirmed that it was petitioner Zahir
Ahmed, who in his capacity as Secretary Wakalat_e-Tabsheer
disseminated banned material to petitioner Shiraz Ahmed and co-accused
Mehmood Iqbal Hashmi for further sharing with public at large. He also
used to provide derogatory books and guidelines to the petitioner Shiraz
Ahmad through a WhatsApp number, registered in his name. According
to the investigating officers, detailed forensic analysis of cell phones of
both the petitioners and co-accused Mehrnood Iqbal Hashmi was got
conducted by the HA and it was found that petitioner Shiraz Ahmed,
being one of the administrator of the Group, used to add and remove
persons not belonging to Ahmedis community in the group on the
instructions of petitioner Zahir Ahmed. In these circumstances, we are of
the view that apparently there is sufficient incriminating material
available on record connecting the petitioners with the commission of
alleged offence. So far as the other contentions of learned counsel for the
petitioners are concerned, suffice it to observe that at bail stage we are
not meant to dig deep into the evidence or to scrutinize factual aspects of
  
the case, which certainly is the responsibility of the trial court and
V
,-L & 150-112022 
6
requires evidence to be adduced from both sides. In case this Court enters
into the realm of the trial court during bail stage, it would be
ciisadvantageous for both sides and would certainly prejudice the case of
either side. Therefore, we restrain ourselves from commenting on the
merits of the case and find that the petitioners at this stage are not
entitled for grant of bail.
6. For the foregoing, the instant criminal petitions having no
merit are dismissed and leave to appeal is refused.
At this stage, it has been observed by us that there are
certain observations in the impugned order, which have the tendency of
prejudicing the case of petitioners before the trial Court. Therefore, we
cxpect that trial of the case shall be conducted and concluded by the trial
Court strictly in accordance with law, without being
prejudiced/influenced by any observation contained in the impugned
order of the learned High Court.
 
AN:oUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON J 7 /o g/
7
rnbad,
APPROVED FOR REPORTING
esJ.
