| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2026 SLG 2458 2026 SLD 2458 |
Islamabad High Court
W.P. No.1553-2026
Presented By: ARBAB MUHAMMAD TAHIR
Petitioner by
Respondents by Date of Hearing : : : Ms Tanzeela Maryam, Advocate. Syed Zain Ul Abideen, Advocate. Mr M. Sajid Khan Tanoli, D.A.G. Mr Mehmood Nazir, Law Officer, SBP. Mr Amir, Inspector, NCCIA. 21.05.2026
W.P. No.1553-2026
Presented By: ARBAB MUHAMMAD TAHIR
Petitioner by
Respondents by Date of Hearing : : : Ms Tanzeela Maryam, Advocate. Syed Zain Ul Abideen, Advocate. Mr M. Sajid Khan Tanoli, D.A.G. Mr Mehmood Nazir, Law Officer, SBP. Mr Amir, Inspector, NCCIA. 21.05.2026
Muhammad Usman
VERSUS
Federation of Pakistan and others
Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973
Section: 199
ORDER SHEET Arbab Muhammad Tahir, J.- The petitioner (Muhammad Usman), through the instant petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 impugns the freezing of his bank account by the respondent No.4-Bank Islamic Pakistan Limited (hereinafter “Bank”) at the instructions of the respondent No.2-National Cyber Crime Investigation Agency (hereinafter “NCCIA”). The petitioner maintains his bank account IBAN: PK65BKIP030290004871007 at Bank Islami Pakistan Limited. An inquiry i.e. No.1283/2024 was registered at the NCCIA pursuant to complaint of Shakil Adnan Malik on the allegations of financial fraud, which related to one Mohammad Omar. Therefore, the NCCIA forwarded email requests to the Bank for provision of record of the said Mohammad Omar and his family members. The Bank admits that such request was never for blocking or freezing of the bank account, yet it imposed debit block on the bank account of the petitioner out of abandoned precaution. The version of the Bank in its written report is reproduced below.- “That in compliance with the lawful request of FIA, the Answering Respondent provided the requisite bank record to FIA. However, owing to a bonafide error, the Petitioner’s account was inadvertently attached/blocked by the Answering Respondent while complying with the said request. In past, many a cases have been reported where the Banks have been found to not have acted in good faith when upon acquiring knowledge about ongoing investigations (criminal) the Bank did not attach the accounts. In such circumstances, 3rd parties withdrew the amounts and subsequently the Banks have been held responsible for not taking precautions.” Likewise, the NCCIA in its written report has mentioned that “No request was forwarded to the petitioner’s Bank to freeze the account of the petitioner”. While admitting their mistake, the respondents have placed on record printouts of email communications to demonstrate that the debit block imposed upon the…