IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN  
(Appellate Jurisdiction) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
PRESENT: 
MR. JUSTICE ANWAR ZAHEER JAMALI  
MR. JUSTICE DOST MUHAMMAD KHAN  
 
 
 
Criminal Petitions No.268-270/2015 
(On 
appeal 
from 
the 
judgment/order 
dated 
13.04.2015 passed by the Lahore High Court, 
Rawalpindi Bench in Crl.Misc. No.288-B/15, 289-
B/15 & 285-B/15) 
 
 
 
Ch. Muhammad Ashfaq  
…Petitioner in all cases  
 
Versus  
The State & others  
..Respondents in all cases 
 
For the petitioner: 
 
Malik Jawad Khalid, ASC 
 
 
 
 
 
(in all cases) 
 
For respondents No.3,5,6,9: Raja Zaheer ud Babar, ASC 
(in Crl.P.268/15) 
 
For the State: 
 
 
Mr. Nayyab Gardezi, Standing Counsel 
 
 
 
 
 
Mr. Tariq Bilal, ASC 
 
Other respondents: 
 
N.R. 
 
Date of hearing:  
 
01.7.2015 
 
 
 
 
  
JUDGMENT  
 
  
  
 
  
Dost Muhammad Khan, J.— Ch. Muhammad Ashfaq is 
seeking leave to appeal through Criminal Petitions No.268, 269 and 
270 of 2015 against the order/judgment of the learned Judge in 
Chamber of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench dated 
13.04.2015, wherein grant of bail was refused to the petitioner in all 
the three cases, registered vide FIRs No.104/2014, 107/2014 and 
Crl.P.268-270/15 
2 
105/2014. This single judgment shall decide all the three petitions 
because questions of law in the same are almost identical.  
 
The arguments of the learned ASCs for the petitioner and the 
complainants as well as for the State heard and record perused. 
2. 
  
The epitome of all the three crimes is that, the petitioner 
along with other co-accused duly nominated in all the three FIRs had 
established, “Cyber Online Job Enterprises in Office No.59/62, 
3rd Floor, Computer Market,  Bank Road, Saddar Rawalpindi”. 
They were offering online jobs to the desiring candidates, albeit they 
were having no channel of employment in this regard nor having any 
means whatsoever to provide jobs to the desiring candidates. It was a 
well contrived strategy how to exploit the public at large and to 
deprive them of their hard earned money.  
3. 
  
It is alleged that during the entire process, the petitioner 
along with his accomplices through deceptive tactics and illegal means 
in these and many other cases have deprived many desiring 
candidates of a sum of rupees more than five millions, however, they 
neither provided the job nor returned the amount, they had received 
from the candidates thus, complaints were made with the FIA of the 
Circle and after open inquiry followed by investigation, almost more 
than 15 cases were registered against them while, learned ASC 
representing the FIA disclosed that in all more than 50 complaints 
were lodged with the FIA, which are under inquiry and investigation.  
4. 
  
Learned ASC for the petitioner came out with twofold plea; 
firstly, that the petitioner is not a partner in the company duly 
registered with the Registrar of the companies, nor his name is 
Crl.P.268-270/15 
3 
appearing in the certificate issued to the company by SECP permitting 
them to run the business, besides he has been granted bail in 13 cases 
for the similar role he has been attributed and; secondly, the offences 
under Cyber Crimes Laws are not constituted, while the rest of the 
offences do not fall within the prohibitory limb of section 497 Cr.P.C. 
hence, the Court discretion is not taken away in granting bail except in 
special and peculiar circumstances of a particular case.  
5. 
  
The learned ASCs for the FIA and the complainants 
strongly opposed grant of bail to the petitioner and also relied on 
certain case laws, particularly the case of Muhammad Rafique Vs. 
State (1997 SCMR 412) and further urged that distinction has been 
drawn by this Court between the two categories of offences, the one 
where an individual is defrauded and the other where the society at 
large is the victim, in the latter case bail has been refused, 
notwithstanding that the offence, for which the accused was charged 
in that case, was not falling within the prohibitory part of section 497 
Cr.P.C. 
6. 
  
It is not denied that the accused petitioner was arrested 
from the same premises where these dubious, tricky and shadowy 
transactions were being carried out through mutual collaboration of all 
the accused and because he has been directly nominated in the written 
complaints made by the victims/complainants.  
7. 
  
Unfortunately, there is a growing tendency on the part of 
swindlers, deceiving the poor public through entrapping tricks of this 
nature. In this way, such scams are becoming the order of the day, 
therefore, same need to be curbed with iron hand and no mercy or 
Crl.P.268-270/15 
4 
leniency should be shown to persons involved in such organized 
crimes.  
8. 
  
To get the concession of bail in offences not punishable 
with imprisonment for ten years, life or death, is not the right of the 
accused but it is certainly discretionary with the Courts of law, keeping 
in view the facts and circumstances of a particular case.  
9. 
  
In ordinary course and in crimes of ordinary nature, such 
discretion is to be exercised in favour of the accused however, when 
ingenious contrived and designed methodology is pressed into service 
for defrauding a bulk of poor peoples through fraudulent means, would 
take out the case of such accused person from the ordinary principle, 
where the discretion in granting bail by the court shall ordinary not to 
be exercised in a routine manner taking the matter leniently 
otherwise, the entire society would be corrupted through such acts of 
detestable nature. 
10. 
  
At the moment, as stated at the bar, more than 50 
complaints of similar nature have been lodged against the petitioner, 
which are still under inquiry/investigation thus, on the available 
record, the petitioner appears to be a member of a gang of swindlers 
involved in deceptive tactics, depriving poor and needy people of their 
hard earned money, who attached high hopes, reposing confidence in 
the petitioner and his accomplices that they would provide lucrative 
and good earning job in return. The device and well designed strategy 
attributed to the petitioner and his accomplices, if is allowed to go 
unchecked, the same is likely to corrupt the whole society and would 
encourage the others to indulge in the same and similar practice.  
Crl.P.268-270/15 
5 
 
In the above background, the discretion vested in the learned 
High Court and the Trial Court in refusing to grant bail has been 
exercised according to the well settled principle on the subject, to 
which no exception could be taken.  
11. 
  
Even otherwise, under the provision of Article 185(3) of 
the Constitution unless and until a particular matter involving 
important point of law, relating to the public at large is made out, the 
extraordinary remedy under the said provision cannot be extended in a 
routine manner in each and every case because the qualifying phrase 
has made interference by this Court conditional on the fulfillment of 
the above essential requirement of the constitutional provision. From 
the facts and circumstances, we do not see any important point of law 
involved in this case of public importance besides the fact that charge-
sheets in all the cases have been submitted before the Trial Court and 
trial is in progress and on this account too, keeping in view the 
principle laid down in the case of Muhammad Ismail v. Muhammad 
Rafique (PLD 1989 SC 585) at such stage, deep appreciation of 
evidence or grant of bail on merits is not permissible practice. 
12. 
  
Accordingly, finding no legal merits in all these three 
petitions, the same are dismissed and leave to appeal is refused to the 
petitioner. However, in the interest of justice and also keeping in view 
the cardinal principle that an accused person shall have a right to 
speedy trial, we would direct the Trial Court to expedite the trial and 
decide the case at the earliest as far as possible, provided that the 
petitioner or any person acting on his behalf is not found instrumental 
in delaying the disposal of the cases.  
Crl.P.268-270/15 
6 
 
The above observations are tentative in nature and in no manner 
shall influence the mind of the Trial Court, which shall decide the cases 
on the basis of evidence, to be recorded at the trial.  
These are the reasons for our short order of even date, which is 
to the following effect:- 
“We have heard the arguments in all the three connected 
petitions. For the reasons to follow separately leave is 
refused and these petitions are dismissed.”  
 
 
Judge  
 
 
 
 
Judge  
Islamabad, the   
1st July, 2015 
Nisar /-‘ 
 
 
 
‘Approved For Reporting’ 
