Latest Judgments

Newly reported judgments from the Supreme Court of Pakistan, the High Courts and tribunals, added as they are processed — free, full text, updated daily. Judgments marked NEW were added in the most recent update. 4,389 judgments in total from the Islamabad High Court.

• Ahmed Bilal vs Khurram Javed and 3 others2023 PLD Islamabad 83 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-06-16Read full judgment →
• Ahmed Ali vs The State2023 YLR 1829 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-06-16
  narcotics controlcharas recoverychemical analyst reportburden of proofcriminal appeallife imprisonment
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Special Court (CNS), Islamabad, whereby the appellant was convicted under section 9-C of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, for transporting 20 kilograms of charas and sentenced to life imprisonment with a fine. The core legal questions involve whether the prosecution successfully established the chain of custody and recovery of narcotics, the evidentiary value of the chemical analyst report and compliance with testing protocols, and the burden of proof regarding facts specially within the accused's knowledge under the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984. The Islamabad High Court held that the prosecution consistently proved the recovery through reliable witnesses, that the chemical analyst's testimony and report fully complied with statutory and procedural requirements, and that the appellant failed to discharge the burden of proof regarding his defense of being an unsuspecting passenger. The appeal was consequently dismissed, upholding the conviction and sentence.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the non-production of a formal constable who transmitted the complaint to the police station vitiates the entire prosecution case?
  • Does the failure of a chemical analyst report to initially detail full protocols render it inadmissible if the analyst is subsequently summoned and examined by the trial court?
  • How does the principle regarding facts specially within the knowledge of the accused under Article 122 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, apply to a plea of being a mere passenger given a lift?
  • Whether the statutory presumption of correctness attached to a government analyst's report under Section 36 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, is conclusive unless rebutted?
  Read full judgment →
• Ahmad Nawaz Khan vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry2023 MLD 1837 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-05-18Read full judgment →
• Ahmad Hassan Shah vs Federation of Pakistan and others2023 IHC 272 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-05-16Read full judgment →
• Aftab-ur-Rehman Awan vs Public at Large2023 IHC 316 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-11-17Read full judgment →
• Afnan Farid and others vs Federation of Pakistan and others2023 PLC (C.S) 837 · Islamabad High Court · 2021-09-29
  Constitutional petitionCivil serviceProfessional engineeringRules of BusinessAppointment and promotionJurisdiction of High CourtPakistan Engineering CouncilTerms and conditions of service
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged a notification issued by the Ministry of Housing and Works reserving 10% of Executive Engineer (BS-18) posts for B.Tech degree holders. The core legal questions were whether the Ministry possessed the lawful authority to issue this notification without mandatory consultation with the Establishment Division, and whether such appointments contravened the Pakistan Engineering Council Act, 1976. The Court held that the notification was issued without lawful authority, as it failed to comply with the procedural requirements of the Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1973 and the Rules of Business, 1973, which necessitate Establishment Division consultation for altering civil service terms. The Court affirmed that professional engineering work, as defined by the Pakistan Engineering Council Act, 1976, must be performed by licensed professional engineers, and B.Tech degree holders do not possess recognized engineering qualifications for such roles. The judgment establishes that administrative actions must strictly adhere to prescribed statutory procedures and that the High Court retains jurisdiction under Article 199 to review the legality of such instruments, distinct from individual service grievances.

  Questions settled

  • Does the High Court have jurisdiction under Article 199 to challenge a government notification regarding service terms if the challenge is based on lack of lawful authority rather than an individual service grievance?
  • Is a Ministry authorized to unilaterally modify the terms and conditions of civil servants without consultation with the Establishment Division?
  • Can B.Tech degree holders be classified as professional engineers under the Pakistan Engineering Council Act, 1976?
  • Does the Pakistan Engineering Council Act, 1976 mandate that professional engineering work be performed exclusively by licensed professional engineers?
  Read full judgment →
• Adam Amin Chaudhry And Another vs National Accountability Bureau2023 PLJ Islamabad 220, 2023 P Cr. L J 1536 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-01-19
  unfreezing of bank accountsjurisdictional thresholdtransfer of referencepublic at largesupplementary referenceinterim orderinherent jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed before the Islamabad High Court seeking the unfreezing and release of the petitioners' movable and immovable properties, including bank accounts. The petitioners were being tried under the National Accountability Ordinance 1999 for public cheating through an illegal investment scheme. Following the National Accountability (Amendment) Acts of 2022, which restricted the jurisdiction of the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) based on monetary thresholds and the number of victims, the Accountability Court returned the reference to the Bureau. The petitioners contended that the freezing orders had lost efficacy as the reference was no longer pending. The High Court dismissed the petition, holding that Section 4(3) of the Ordinance explicitly mandates the 'transfer' of pending matters to competent courts rather than their 'return' to the Bureau. The Court ruled that such a transfer does not amount to an acquittal or discharge, and that the freezing orders remain valid until modified by a competent court subsequently taking cognizance of the matter.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the return of a reference by an Accountability Court due to statutory amendments on jurisdiction automatically terminates or invalidates interim freezing orders passed during the trial?
  • Does Section 4(3) of the National Accountability Ordinance 1999 mandate the 'transfer' of pending proceedings to a competent court or their 'return' to the National Accountability Bureau?
  • Whether an order returning a reference to the investigating agency without determining guilt or innocence constitutes a final judgment for the purposes of the bar on review under Section 369 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can the High Court exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to correct an improper order of return and ensure the transfer of proceedings to a competent court?
  Read full judgment →
• Adam Amin Chaudhry & another vs National Accountability Bureau (NAB)2023 IHC 3 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-12-20Read full judgment →
• Abid Rehman vs Farooq Umar Bhoja and othersPLJ 2023 Cr.C. 757 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-05-20
  speaking orderjudicial reasoningcriminal revisioncharge alterationQatl-bis-sababSection 302 PPCjudicial discretion
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition challenged an order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, which altered the charge against the accused from Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860 to Section 322, Pakistan Penal Code 1860 regarding a fatal plane crash. The core legal question was whether the trial court’s order was legally sustainable when it failed to provide reasons for its conclusion to alter the charge. The High Court held that the impugned order was legally unsustainable because it lacked the essential reasoning required for a judicial decision. The court emphasized that a judicial order must be a 'speaking order,' demonstrating that the court has applied its mind to the evidence and facts of the case. Since the trial court failed to explain how the evidence led to the conclusion that Section 321, Pakistan Penal Code 1860 applied instead of Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, the order was set aside, and the matter was remanded for a fresh, reasoned decision.

  Questions settled

  • Is a judicial order that fails to provide reasons for its conclusion legally sustainable?
  • Must a trial court provide specific reasons when altering a charge under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Does a 'speaking order' require a court to demonstrate the application of its mind to the evidence on record?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Wahid Uqaily vs Fop through Secretary Establishment Division, and others2023 IHC 376 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-03-18Read full judgment →
• Abdul Qadir vs The Additional Collector Customs (Adjudication) and others2023 IHC 436 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
• Abdul Qadir Abbasi, etc vs Muhammad Rafique, etc2023 IHC 398 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-02-01Read full judgment →
• Abdul Latif Qureshi and others vs Federation of Pakistan etc.2023 IHC 140 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-01-31Read full judgment →
• Abdul Khaliq Achakzai vs Election Commission of Pakistan and others2023 IHC 266 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-04-17Read full judgment →
• Abdul Jabbar Khan Bangash vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary2023 PLD Islamabad 209, 2023 PLJ Islamabad 256 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-03-07Read full judgment →
• Abdul Jabbar Khan Bangash vs Federation of Pakistan and another.2023 IHC 174 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-02-14Read full judgment →
• Abdul Hameed vs The State and another2023 YLR 479 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-05-17
  post-arrest bailbail cancellationmurdercriminal conspiracydiscovery of factQanun-e-Shahadatprohibitory clauseperverse order
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal miscellaneous petition arose from an order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Islamabad-West, granting post-arrest bail to the respondent accused of murder under sections 302, 201, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the trial court exercised its discretion appropriately in granting bail despite the existence of substantial incriminating material, including the accused's disclosure leading to the recovery of the crime weapon and other evidence. The Islamabad High Court held that the trial court's order was perverse and lacked proper reasoning, as it ignored significant evidence linking the accused to the crime. The Court recalled the bail, emphasizing that bail-granting orders must be based on sound judicial considerations and that orders ignoring material evidence or failing to provide rational reasons constitute a miscarriage of justice. The Court further affirmed that statements made to the police, while generally inadmissible, become admissible under Article 40 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984 when they lead to the discovery of new facts, thereby establishing a prima facie case against the accused.

  Questions settled

  • Under what circumstances can a bail-granting order be cancelled by a superior court?
  • Does a confession made to the police become admissible if it leads to the discovery of a new fact under Article 40 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984?
  • Is a bail order that ignores material evidence on record considered perverse and subject to cancellation?
  Read full judgment →
• Abbas Khan vs The State and another2023 PCRLJ 549, PLJ 2023 Cr.C. 477 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-11-16
  statutory baildelay in conclusion of trialpost-arrest bailrobberyhabitual offenderprohibitory clause
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a second post-arrest bail petition filed by the accused, Abbas Khan, facing trial under sections 392 and 411 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, seeking release on the statutory ground of delay in the conclusion of his trial. The core legal question centered on whether the accused was entitled to statutory bail under the third proviso to section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when his detention exceeded one year and the delay was not attributable to him, notwithstanding his involvement in other criminal cases without any prior convictions. The Islamabad High Court accepted the petition and held that the statutory period of one year for the conclusion of a trial runs from the date of arrest rather than the framing of the charge, and since the delay was caused by the absence of prosecution witnesses rather than any act or omission of the accused, and he was not a previous convict, he was entitled to bail. The key principle laid down is that the right to statutory bail ripens after one year from detention in non-capital offences unless exceptions regarding contributory delay or previous convictions apply.

  Questions settled

  • Does the one-year period for statutory bail under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 commence from the date of the accused's arrest or from the date the charge is framed?
  • Whether an accused can be denied statutory bail solely on the ground of being involved in other criminal cases when there is no previous conviction?
  • What are the exceptions that disentitle an accused from claiming statutory bail on the ground of delay in the conclusion of the trial?
  Read full judgment →
• Aamir Shahzad Khan vs Muhammad Sabir2023 IHC 354 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-06-09Read full judgment →
• Zakir Jaffer and another vs The State and another2022 PCRLJ 1242 · Islamabad High Court · 2021-09-29
  post-arrest bailabetmentprohibitory clauseillegal omissiontampering with evidencetentative assessmentcriminal conspiracy
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners sought post-arrest bail in a murder case involving charges under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, including abetment. They contended that most offences did not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and that evidence was insufficient. The Court examined whether the petitioners, who were not the principal accused, were entitled to bail given the evidence of their alleged abetment and failure to report the crime. The Court dismissed the bail petition, holding that although bail is generally a rule for offences not falling within the prohibitory clause, it may be refused if there is a likelihood of tampering with evidence or obstructing justice. The Court affirmed that 'passive assistance' or illegal omission to report a known crime can constitute abetment under Section 109, Pakistan Penal Code 1860. Given the petitioners' attempts to conceal evidence and the imminent trial, the Court found that the exceptions to the general rule of bail were attracted, thereby justifying the refusal of bail.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure to report a known crime constitute an illegal omission amounting to abetment under Section 109, Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Can bail be refused for offences not falling within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does the risk of tampering with prosecution evidence or obstructing the course of justice constitute a valid ground for refusing bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Zakir Jaffer and another vs State and anotherPLJ 2022 Cr.C. 169 · Islamabad High Court · 2021-09-29
  post-arrest bailabetment by illegal omissionprohibitory clausetentative assessmenttampering with evidencecall data recordmurder
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a post-arrest bail petition filed by the petitioners, Zakir Jaffar and Asmat Zakir Jaffar, in a high-profile murder case registered under Sections 302, 201, 511, 109, 118, 364, 368, 176, and 376 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Kohsar, Islamabad. The core legal questions involved whether the petitioners, who were not the principal accused but allegedly had prior knowledge of the confinement and murder of the victim and failed to inform the authorities, made out a case for bail, particularly regarding the applicability of abetment through illegal omission under Section 109 read with Section 107 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, and whether exceptions to the rule against refusing bail in non-prohibitory offences applied. The Islamabad High Court held that prima facie, passive assistance and failure to report the crime constituted illegal omission amounting to abetment under Section 109, and that the likelihood of tampering with evidence and obstructing the trial justified refusing bail despite certain offences falling outside the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The key principles laid down include that abetment encompasses illegal omissions such as the failure of a person with knowledge of an impending or ongoing grave crime to inform law enforcement, and that exceptional circumstances—such as the risk of evidence tampering—warrant the refusal of bail even for offences not falling within the prohibitory clause.

  Questions settled

  • Can passive assistance and a failure to report a crime constitute abetment by illegal omission under Section 109 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Does the failure of a person aware of the commission of an offence to inform the authorities under Section 44 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 amount to an illegal omission?
  • Whether bail can be refused for offences not falling within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when exceptions such as the risk of evidence tampering are present?
  • Is a confession made before the police admissible in evidence under Articles 38 to 40 of the Qanoon-e-Shahadat Order, 1984?
  Read full judgment →
• Zahid Ali vs Federation Of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Overseas2022 PLC (C.S.) 32 · Islamabad High Court · 2021-04-02
  disciplinary proceedingsshow cause noticedismissal from serviceauthorized officercompetent authorityinjunctive ordercontempt of courtmaster and servantjurisdictional defect
  Summary & questions settled

  This consolidated judgment by the Islamabad High Court addresses two writ petitions challenging a show cause notice and a subsequent dismissal order issued against the petitioner, an employee under the Workers' Welfare Fund. The core legal questions involved whether the authority possessed the jurisdiction to override the authorized officer's findings, whether the dismissal order violated an existing injunctive order of the court, and whether the proceedings suffered from jurisdictional defects and mala fides. The court held that under the Workers' Welfare Fund (Employees' Service) Rules, 1997, the authority lacks suo motu or revisional powers to override an authorized officer's opinion of exoneration or imposition of a minor penalty, and that actions taken in direct disobedience of a court's interim injunctive order are illegal, void, and liable to be set aside. The court established the principle that public functionaries must strictly adhere to the statutory scheme of conferred powers and cannot bypass procedural safeguards or disregard sub judice injunctive orders.

  Questions settled

  • Does the competent authority under the Workers' Welfare Fund (Employees' Service) Rules, 1997 possess the power to override an authorized officer's decision to exonerate an employee?
  • Is a dismissal order passed in blatant disregard of an active interim injunctive order of the court liable to be set aside?
  • Can public functionaries exercise powers not expressly conferred upon them by the governing statutory rules?
  • Does an interim injunctive order passed by a court evaporate automatically due to oral observations made during subsequent proceedings without an explicit recall?
  Read full judgment →
• Zafar Mehmood and another vs Mst. Shaheen Baig and another2022 [M] CLR 508 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-01-28Read full judgment →
• Yasir Khan vs The State and another2022 MLD 1070 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-01-14
  pre-arrest bailsuccessive bail petitionabuse of processcriminal proceduredisclosure obligationinvestigation delay
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for pre-arrest bail arose from FIR No. 312, registered under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether a successive pre-arrest bail petition is maintainable when the petitioner previously withdrew an earlier application without providing a satisfactory explanation or disclosing that fact to the court. The Islamabad High Court held that the petition was not maintainable. The court emphasized that while an accused may approach the court for pre-arrest bail successively for justifiable reasons, they are strictly obligated to furnish a satisfactory explanation for the withdrawal of any prior petition. Failure to disclose the fate of previous applications or to provide a valid reason for withdrawal constitutes an abuse of the court process, intended to stall investigations and manipulate the criminal justice system. Consequently, the court dismissed the petition and recalled the ad interim bail previously granted, establishing that successive bail petitions lacking such disclosures and justifications are legally untenable and should not be entertained by trial courts.

  Questions settled

  • Is a successive pre-arrest bail petition maintainable if the petitioner fails to provide a satisfactory explanation for the withdrawal of an earlier petition?
  • Does the failure to disclose the history of previous bail applications in a subsequent petition constitute an abuse of the court process?
  • Are trial courts required to ensure that petitioners disclose the status of prior bail applications in successive filings?
  Read full judgment →
• Yasir Hafeez and another vs The State and another2022 IHC 106, 2022 MLD 1041 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-02-18
  pre-arrest bailabductioncustody disputecriminal investigationtentative assessmentmalafideanticipatory bail
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition sought pre-arrest bail in a case registered under Section 363 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, concerning the alleged abduction of a minor. The core legal question was whether the petitioners, who were nominated in the FIR, were entitled to anticipatory bail despite allegations of forcibly kidnapping the child to settle a custody dispute. The court held that the petitioners were not entitled to pre-arrest bail, noting that their custodial interrogation was necessary for the recovery of weapons and other incriminating evidence. The court emphasized that pre-arrest bail is an extraordinary remedy not to be granted as a matter of right. It reaffirmed that such relief is reserved for cases where the prosecution is motivated by malafide or where no offence is disclosed on the face of the record. Furthermore, the court held that bail cannot be used to subvert or undermine the investigative process. As the petitioners failed to demonstrate malafide and sufficient evidence connected them to the crime, the court dismissed the petition and recalled the interim bail.

  Questions settled

  • Is pre-arrest bail a matter of legal right in criminal cases?
  • Can an accused be granted pre-arrest bail if their custody is required for the recovery of incriminating evidence?
  • Does the court's tentative assessment at the bail stage affect the merits of the subsequent trial?
  • Is the existence of malafide a necessary condition for the grant of pre-arrest bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Wing Commander Naubahar Abbasi vs Mahmood ul Haque Alvi2022 IHC 28 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-03-09Read full judgment →
• Werrick Health Care vs Assistant Commissioner Islamabad, etc2022 IHC 98 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-04-01
  writ petitionpayment of wagesgratuityout of court settlementconsent order
  Summary & questions settled

  The instant writ petition arose out of a judgment passed by the Assistant Commissioner and Authority under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, holding the respondent entitled to recover an amount as gratuity. During the proceedings, the respondent stated that the matter had been resolved through an out-of-court settlement and that his grievances had been redressed. The respondent expressed no objection to the setting aside of the impugned judgment. Consequently, the court set aside the impugned judgment based on the settlement arrived at between the parties and disposed of the writ petition accordingly, establishing that matters settled amicably out of court may lead to the setting aside of impugned administrative or quasi-judicial findings with the consent of the parties.

  Questions settled

  • Can an impugned judgment under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 be set aside on the basis of an out-of-court settlement?
  • Whether a writ petition can be disposed of in terms of a compromise reached between the parties?
  Read full judgment →
• Waseem Khan alias Bhola vs The State, etc2022 IHC 82 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-03-16
  post-arrest bailprohibitory clauseforensic evidencetentative assessmentcriminal proceduremurder
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by the petitioner, Waseem Khan, who was charged under Sections 302, 324, and 337-A(i) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for his alleged involvement in a murder case. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to the concession of post-arrest bail given the available evidence, despite his contention that he was falsely implicated after initially acting as an informant. The Court observed that while the petitioner was nominated in a supplementary statement, the prosecution had established a prima facie case through the recovery of the crime weapon, which was positively linked to the crime scene empties by a Forensic Science Laboratory report. The Court held that since the offense was heinous, fell within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and carried capital punishment, the petitioner was not entitled to bail. The Court affirmed that bail decisions require a tentative assessment of tangible evidence rather than a deep probe into merits, emphasizing that each case must be decided on its own peculiar facts.

  Questions settled

  • Does the recovery of a weapon positively linked to crime scene evidence by a forensic report constitute sufficient grounds to deny post-arrest bail in a murder case?
  • Should a court conduct a deep probe into the merits of a case when deciding a bail application?
  • Is an accused entitled to bail if the alleged offense falls within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and entails capital punishment?
  Read full judgment →
• Waqas Ahmed vs The State and another2022 YLR 568 · Islamabad High Court · 2021-07-14
  post-arrest bailcircumstantial evidencesupplementary statementfurther inquirymurderevidentiary value
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by the accused, Waqas Ahmed, in a case involving charges under sections 302 and 201 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, arising from the murder of a woman found strangled in her residence. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given that he was nominated in a supplementary statement, the case rested on circumstantial evidence, and no motive was established. The court held that the petitioner was entitled to bail, observing that the case against him was based on weak circumstantial evidence, specifically the recovery of the deceased's mobile phone, the evidentiary value of which remained to be determined at trial. The court emphasized that the lack of a suggested motive and the reliance on a supplementary statement created grounds for further inquiry. Consequently, the court granted post-arrest bail, establishing the principle that where the prosecution's case relies on weak circumstantial evidence and supplementary statements without a clear motive, the accused's continued incarceration serves no beneficial purpose, thereby satisfying the requirements for bail under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.

  Questions settled

  • Does the nomination of an accused in a supplementary statement rather than the initial FIR constitute grounds for further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can an accused be granted bail when the prosecution's case rests solely on circumstantial evidence and the recovery of a mobile phone?
  • Is the absence of a suggested motive in the FIR a relevant factor for the court to consider when deciding a post-arrest bail application?
  Read full judgment →
• Waleed Arfaqat vs The State and another2022 PCRLJ 810 · Islamabad High Court · 2021-07-12
  post-arrest bailfurther inquiryprinciple of consistencycontrary medical reportdoubtful recoverystatutory liberty
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a criminal petition seeking post-arrest bail in a case involving charges of murder and attempt to murder. The core legal question is whether the petitioner has made out a case for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, given contradictions in the medical reports, doubtful recoveries, and the principle of consistency with a co-accused who was already granted bail. The Islamabad High Court held that the petitioner is entitled to bail as his case falls within the scope of further inquiry, noting that bail is not to be withheld as a punishment, mere involvement in other unproven criminal cases does not disentitle an accused to bail, and liberty is a precious constitutional right. The key principles laid down are that contradictions in medical evidence regarding weapon use, delayed site inspections, and the rule of consistency warrant the grant of post-arrest bail, and that prolonged incarceration without progress in trial cannot be justified.

  Questions settled

  • Whether contradictions between ocular evidence and medical reports regarding the weapon used create a case for further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898?
  • Does the principle of consistency apply when a co-accused facing similar allegations has already been granted bail?
  • Can mere involvement in other criminal cases, without proof of conviction, be a ground to withhold the concession of post-arrest bail?
  • Whether delayed site inspection and doubtful recovery of crime empties entitle an accused to post-arrest bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Usman Saad vs The Additional District Judge, Islamabad & 5 others2022 IHC 232 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-09-07Read full judgment →
• Usman Arshad vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Revenue, Islamabad and others2022 PCTLR 730 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-02-16Read full judgment →
• Usman Arshad vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Revenue, Islamabad2022 PTD 1235 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-02-16Read full judgment →
• Umer Farooq vs President Iiui, etc2022 IHC 72 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-03-15Read full judgment →
• Umer Bilal vs The State and another2022 PCRLJ 1373 · Islamabad High Court · 2021-08-12
  post-arrest bailfurther inquirydelay in FIRstatement of co-accusedvicarious liabilityidentification paradefundamental rights
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a post-arrest bail petition arising out of an FIR registered for multiple heinous offences including gang rape, dacoity, and wrongful confinement. The core legal question centered on whether the petitioner, who was not named in the FIR or the initial statements of the victims, and whose implication rested primarily on a co-accused's statement and an identification parade attributing a passive role, made out a case for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, particularly in light of an inordinate delay in reporting the crime. The Islamabad High Court held that the petitioner was entitled to bail, ruling that the statement of a co-accused before police is inadmissible under Article 38 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984, that a delayed FIR without plausible explanation weakens the prosecution's case, and that bail cannot be withheld as a punishment. The court established the principle that liberty should not be curtailed without reasonable grounds showing complicity, and that cases must be decided on evidence rather than social media hype.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the statement of a co-accused recorded before the police is admissible in evidence against another accused under Article 38 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984?
  • Can bail be refused to an accused on the ground of vicarious liability without positive evidence of an active role in the crime?
  • Does an inordinate and unexplained delay in lodging the First Information Report provide a valid ground for the grant of post-arrest bail?
  • Whether courts should rely on media reports and social media hype while deciding bail petitions involving heinous offences?
  Read full judgment →
• The State vs Qamar Zaman2022 YLR 1556 · Islamabad High Court · 2019-03-13
  murder referencebenefit of doubtcriminal appealwitness credibilitySection 161 CrPCacquittalbeyond reasonable doubt
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a Murder Reference and a criminal appeal against the conviction and death sentence of the appellant for the murder of his wife and another individual. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had established the appellant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt based on the evidence presented, including witness testimonies and forensic reports. The Islamabad High Court held that the prosecution failed to provide unimpeachable evidence, noting significant material contradictions in the testimonies of private witnesses and unexplained delays in recording their statements under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. Furthermore, the court found the recovery of the weapon doubtful and the motive unproven. Consequently, the court set aside the trial court's judgment, acquitted the appellant, and extended him the benefit of doubt. The key principle laid down is that a criminal conviction requires certainty of guilt based on credible, trustworthy evidence, and any material doubt arising from the prosecution's case must be resolved in favor of the accused, particularly when witness credibility is compromised.

  Questions settled

  • Does an unexplained delay in recording witness statements under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, render such testimony unreliable?
  • Is the mere relationship of a witness to the deceased sufficient to classify them as an 'interested witness' whose testimony must be discarded?
  • What is the effect of material contradictions in the testimonies of prosecution witnesses on the burden of proof in a murder trial?
  • Can a conviction be sustained when the prosecution fails to establish a clear motive and the evidence presented is contradictory?
  Read full judgment →
• The State vs Imran Ahmad Khan Niazi2022 IHC 256 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
• The State through Advocate-General, ICT vs Learned Additional Sessions2022 IHC 230 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-08-16Read full judgment →
• The Communicators (Pvt.) Ltd vs Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory2022 IHC 122, 2024 CLC 479 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-03-28Read full judgment →
• The Assistant Collector Customs (Preventive Division), Mcc, Islamabad and another vs Sher Muhammad and others2022 PTD 1749 · Islamabad High Court · 2021-09-22
  customs seizureOrder-in-OriginalCustoms Appellate Tribunalconstitutional petitioncontempt of courtinfructuous petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves a constitutional petition and a contempt application arising from the seizure of a vehicle by the Customs Department. The core legal question concerned the challenge to an Order-in-Original directing the unconditional release of the seized vehicle and the execution of a prior court order directing the handing over of possession when the Customs Appellate Tribunal was non-functional. The Islamabad High Court held that since the Customs Appellate Tribunal has now become functional and an appeal along with a stay application is pending before it, the constitutional petition challenging the Order-in-Original has become infructuous. The Court laid down the principle that matters pending before statutory appellate forums of competent jurisdiction, where interim relief can be sought, should be left to be decided by those forums when they become functional, rendering parallel constitutional petitions infructuous.

  Questions settled

  • Does a constitutional petition challenging an Order-in-Original become infructuous when the Customs Appellate Tribunal becomes functional?
  • Can the High Court direct parties to pursue their remedies before the Customs Appellate Tribunal when the tribunal is operational and a stay application is pending?
  Read full judgment →
• Tariq Naeem Chugtai vs Addl: District Judge Islamabad (West), etc2022 IHC 74 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-03-17Read full judgment →
• Tanveer Willam vs The State, etc2022 IHC 84 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-03-28
  pre-arrest baildismissal for non-appearancesecond bail petitiondiscretionary reliefabsenteeism of accusedbail maintainability
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from pre-arrest bail petitions filed by the petitioners in respect of FIR No. 146 registered under Sections 324, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question concerns the maintainability of a second pre-arrest bail petition and the entitlement of accused persons to discretionary relief when their initial bail petition was dismissed in default due to non-appearance without a satisfactory explanation. The Islamabad High Court dismissed the petitions, holding that under Section 498-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, where a pre-arrest bail petition is dismissed for non-appearance, a second petition is only maintainable if the petitioner furnishes a satisfactory explanation for their absence. The key principle laid down is that the misuse of court process through unexplained absence disentitles an accused to the extraordinary discretionary relief of pre-arrest bail, rendering subsequent petitions liable to dismissal without reaching the merits.

  Questions settled

  • Is a second pre-arrest bail petition maintainable after the first petition is dismissed for the non-appearance of the accused?
  • What is the effect of an unsatisfactory explanation for the non-appearance of an accused in a pre-arrest bail matter?
  • Can an accused person who absented themselves before the trial court claim the extraordinary discretionary relief of pre-arrest bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Tahseen Shaukat vs Learned Adj & others2022 LHC 13 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-02-24Read full judgment →
• Tahir Zahoor Ahmad and others vs The State and others2022 MLD 523 · Islamabad High Court · 2021-10-02
  fair trialSection 265-C Cr.P.C.police diariesCCTV footageSection 161 Cr.P.C.criminal revisiondaryaftdisclosure of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision matter concerns the entitlement of the accused to receive specific documents prior to the framing of charges in a criminal trial. The core legal questions were whether statements recorded by police in case diaries (daryaft) constitute statements under Section 161, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and whether the accused is entitled to receive copies of CCTV footage at the pre-trial stage. The Court held that statements recorded in police diaries, even if not separately recorded, fall within the ambit of Section 161, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and must be supplied to the accused under Section 265-C, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. However, the Court declined to order the supply of CCTV footage at the pre-trial stage, ruling that it is not a document strictly covered by Section 265-C, and early disclosure poses risks of tampering or prejudice. The key principle laid down is that the accused is entitled to all inculpatory and exculpatory evidence, and Section 161, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 is independent of the privilege attached to police diaries under Section 172, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, ensuring the constitutional right to a fair trial.

  Questions settled

  • Are statements recorded by the police in case diaries (daryaft) considered statements under Section 161, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is the accused entitled to receive copies of CCTV footage at the pre-trial stage under Section 265-C, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does the privilege attached to police diaries under Section 172, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 extend to statements recorded under Section 161, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Taha Raza and others vs The State and others2022 PCRLJ 838 · Islamabad High Court · 2021-06-08
  post-arrest bailNAB referencemoney launderingprinciple of consistencyfundamental rightsinordinate delaymedical grounds
  Summary & questions settled

  These writ petitions were filed by the petitioners seeking post-arrest bail in connection with a National Accountability Bureau (NAB) reference involving allegations of money laundering and the operation of fake bank accounts. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to bail given the significant delay in the trial's conclusion, their respective medical conditions, and the principle of consistency, considering that co-accused had already been released. The Court held that the petitioners were entitled to bail. It reasoned that the prosecution's case relied heavily on documentary evidence already in its possession, minimizing the risk of tampering. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that bail should not be withheld as a form of punishment, and prolonged incarceration without the commencement of a trial constitutes a violation of fundamental rights. Applying the principle of consistency, the Court noted that co-accused at higher rungs had been granted bail. Consequently, the Court granted the petitions, ruling that the petitioners' continued detention was unjustified given the lack of progress in the trial and the specific medical hardships presented.

  Questions settled

  • Can a High Court grant bail in a NAB case under its constitutional jurisdiction?
  • Does the principle of consistency apply to grant bail when co-accused have been released?
  • Is inordinate delay in the conclusion of a trial a valid ground for granting bail?
  • Can bail be withheld as a form of punishment for an accused?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Yousaf Raza Gillani vs Federation Of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Law and Justice, Islamabad and 5 others2022 PLD Islamabad 326 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-03-21Read full judgment →
• Syed Waheed Hussain Shah, etc vs Federation of Pakistan, etc2022 [M] CLR 631 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-02-22
  up-gradation of postsservice mattersjudicial reviewvested rightadministrative discretionArticle 199separation of powers
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns five consolidated writ petitions seeking the judicial up-gradation of various government posts from lower to higher basic pay scales (BS). The core legal question is whether individual employees possess a vested right to demand the up-gradation of their posts and whether the judiciary can intervene in executive policy regarding organizational structure and human resource management. The Court held that up-gradation is distinct from promotion and falls exclusively within the executive's policy domain. It reaffirmed that no employee has a vested right to seek up-gradation of a post, nor does up-gradation of a post automatically entitle the incumbent to promotion or higher benefits. The Court emphasized that judicial review of such executive policy is highly deferential, limited only to instances of illegality, procedural impropriety, or extreme irrationality. Consequently, the Court ruled that petitioners lacked the standing of 'aggrieved persons' under Article 199 of the Constitution to challenge the non-up-gradation of their posts, as such decisions are matters of administrative discretion and financial management, not fundamental rights.

  Questions settled

  • Does an individual employee have a vested right to seek the up-gradation of the post against which they are serving?
  • Is the up-gradation of a post synonymous with the promotion of the incumbent holding that post?
  • Can a High Court interfere with executive policy regarding the organizational structure and human resource management of government departments under Article 199 of the Constitution?
  • Does the bar of Article 212 of the Constitution apply to petitions seeking the up-gradation of a post?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Shah Abbas vs Junaid Jalil2022 IHC 34 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-03-03
  contempt of courtinfructuous petitioncustoms adjudicationinterim reliefcustoms appellate tribunalnon-compliancewrit jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This Criminal Original Petition was filed alleging contempt of court for the respondent's failure to comply with an order dated 22.04.2021 passed in W.P. No. 117/2021. The petitioner sought the initiation of contempt proceedings, contending that the respondent deliberately ignored the court's direction to accept duties and taxes for the release of a vehicle, as previously ordered by the Collector (Adjudication). The respondent argued that the matter had become infructuous as the Customs Appellate Tribunal (C.A.T.) was now functional and had issued a status quo order regarding the vehicle. The court observed that while the respondent had initially failed to comply with the previous order, the primary purpose of that order was to provide interim relief until the C.A.T. became functional. Given that the C.A.T. was now seized of the matter and the petitioner expressed a willingness to pursue the case before that forum, the court held that initiating contempt proceedings was unnecessary. Consequently, the petition was dismissed as having become infructuous, emphasizing that contempt jurisdiction is exercised sparingly.

  Questions settled

  • Can a contempt petition be dismissed as infructuous if the underlying dispute is now pending before a functional appellate tribunal?
  • Does the failure to comply with an interim court order constitute contempt if the order was intended only to operate until a statutory tribunal became functional?
  • Should a court exercise its contempt jurisdiction when the petitioner expresses a willingness to pursue the merits of the case before the appropriate appellate forum?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Nisar Hussain Bukhari vs Mehmood Akhter and others2022 IHC 22 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-03-02Read full judgment →
• Syed Mohsin Ali and others vs The State and others2022 PCRLJ 1511 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-03-09
  extra-judicial confessionretracted confessionextraterritorial jurisdictioncriminal conspiracymurderanti-terrorismcorroborationdelayed FIR
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns criminal appeals against the conviction of three individuals for the murder of a Pakistani citizen in London, United Kingdom. The core legal questions addressed were whether Pakistani courts possess jurisdiction over offences committed by citizens abroad, the evidentiary value of retracted extra-judicial confessions, and the impact of a delayed First Information Report (FIR). The Court held that under Section 188 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, Pakistani courts have jurisdiction to try citizens for offences committed outside Pakistan, provided the procedural requirements are met. Regarding the confessions, the Court ruled that while the appellants retracted their statements, they remain admissible and carry evidentiary value when corroborated by independent oral, documentary, and electronic evidence. The Court affirmed the convictions, finding that the prosecution successfully established the conspiracy and the commission of the offence beyond reasonable doubt. The key principle laid down is that retracted confessions are not discarded if supported by corroborative evidence, and the law of limitation does not apply to criminal cases, rendering a delayed FIR non-fatal to the prosecution's case.

  Questions settled

  • Do Pakistani courts have jurisdiction to try Pakistani citizens for offences committed outside Pakistan?
  • Can a conviction be based on a retracted confession?
  • Does the failure to obtain Federal Government sanction under Section 188 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 invalidate proceedings for an offence committed abroad?
  • Is the law of limitation applicable to the registration of an FIR in criminal cases?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Mohsin Ali and another vs The State & another2022 KLR Criminal Cases 232 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-03-09
  extra-judicial confessionretracted confessionextraterritorial jurisdictioncriminal conspiracymurdercorroborative evidenceAnti-Terrorism ActCode of Criminal Procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns criminal appeals against convictions for the murder of Imran Farooq in London. The core legal questions addressed were whether Pakistani courts possess jurisdiction to try Pakistani citizens for offenses committed abroad, the evidentiary value of retracted judicial confessions, and the sufficiency of the prosecution's evidence. The Court dismissed the appeals, upholding the convictions. It held that under Section 188 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, Pakistani courts have jurisdiction to try Pakistani citizens for offenses committed outside Pakistan, provided procedural sanctions are obtained, though non-compliance is often a curable procedural defect. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that retracted judicial confessions are admissible and carry probative value when corroborated by independent evidence, such as forensic reports, CCTV footage, and witness testimonies. The Court also established that a belated FIR does not inherently invalidate a prosecution if the investigation was otherwise robust and the evidence, including electronic and forensic data, proves the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

  Questions settled

  • Do courts in Pakistan have jurisdiction to try Pakistani citizens for offenses committed outside the country?
  • Does the absence of Federal Government sanction under Section 188 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 render proceedings for an extraterritorial offense void?
  • Can a conviction be based on a retracted judicial confession if it is supported by independent corroborative evidence?
  • Does a delay in the registration of an FIR in Pakistan invalidate a criminal prosecution when the investigation was promptly conducted by foreign authorities?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Ikram Mustafa vs Mian Wali Muhammad2022 MLD 709 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-01-04Read full judgment →
• Syed Hussain Raza and another vs Pak Datacom Limited through Chief2022 PLC (C.S.) 762 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-01-25
  writ of mandamusemployment contractstatutory rulesgovernment-controlled companymaintainabilityservice manualpublic sector company
  Summary & questions settled

  This Intra-Court Appeal challenged the dismissal of writ petitions seeking a writ of mandamus for the continuation of employment at Pak Datacom Limited, a company allegedly controlled by the Federal Government. The core legal question was whether such a petition is maintainable when the employment is not governed by statutory rules. The Court dismissed the appeals, holding that the mere amenability of a company to writ jurisdiction does not render all petitions against it maintainable. The Court distinguished between general writ jurisdiction and the specific requirement for statutory rules in employment matters. It held that Pak Datacom’s Service Manual did not constitute statutory rules, as it lacked genesis in statutory powers. Consequently, the Court affirmed that in the absence of statutory rules governing the employment relationship, a writ of mandamus for continuation of service cannot be issued. The judgment reinforces the principle that employment disputes involving non-statutory entities or non-statutory rules fall outside the scope of writ jurisdiction, regardless of the entity's ownership structure.

  Questions settled

  • Is a writ of mandamus maintainable for the continuation of employment in a company in the absence of statutory rules governing such employment?
  • Does the government's ownership or control of a company automatically elevate its internal service manual to the status of statutory rules?
  • Can a writ petition be maintained against a government-controlled company for employment disputes if the employment is not regulated by statutory rules?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Ali Asim Jaffari, etc vs Qamar Abbas, etc2022 PLJ Islamabad 214 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-08-31Read full judgment →
• Sungi Development Foundation Employees Provident Fund Trustees vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Ministry of Finance, Revenue and Economic Affairs and others2022 PTD 1690 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-05-16Read full judgment →
• Sui Southern Gas Officers Association through Secretary vs Federation Of Pakistan through Secretary and 3 others2022 PLC 58 · Islamabad High Court · 2021-06-24
  industry-wise trade unionN.I.R.C.trade union registrationcancellation of registrationwrit jurisdictionIndustrial Relations Act 2012jurisdiction of N.I.R.C.
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition challenged an order passed by the National Industrial Relations Commission (N.I.R.C.) cancelling the registration of the petitioner, an industry-wise trade union. The core legal question was whether the N.I.R.C. possessed the jurisdiction to cancel such registration, or if this authority was exclusively reserved for the Registrar of Trade Unions. The Court dismissed the petition, holding that the N.I.R.C. maintains the jurisdiction to cancel the registration of an industry-wise trade union. Relying on the precedent established in Chevron Pakistan Lubricants (Private) Limited v. Federation of Pakistan, the Court affirmed that 'trade unions' and 'industry-wise trade unions' are distinct legal entities. Consequently, the power to register and cancel the registration of an industry-wise trade union vests in the Commission, not the Registrar. The Court further observed that Regulation 10A of the National Industrial Relations Commission (Procedure and Functions) Regulations, 2016, explicitly empowers the Commission to perform functions equivalent to the Registrar regarding industry-wise trade unions. As an appeal was already pending before the N.I.R.C., the Court declined to exercise its Constitutional jurisdiction.

  Questions settled

  • Does the National Industrial Relations Commission have the jurisdiction to cancel the registration of an industry-wise trade union?
  • Are 'trade unions' and 'industry-wise trade unions' treated as distinct entities under the Industrial Relations Act 2012?
  • Does the power to grant registration to an industry-wise trade union imply the power to cancel such registration?
  • Can the High Court exercise Constitutional jurisdiction when an appeal is already pending before the National Industrial Relations Commission?
  Read full judgment →
• State through Advocate-General, ICT vs Learned Additional Sessions2022 PLJ Islamabad 170 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
• Shell Pakistan Limited through Retail Operations Manager and Special2022 CLC 941, 2022 [M] CLR 778, 2022 PCTLR 620 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-01-21Read full judgment →
• Shehnaz Akhtar and another vs Mst. Zeenat Tariq and others2022 PLD Islamabad 360 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-07-26Read full judgment →
• Shehbaz Ahmed vs The State and another2022 IHC 76 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-02-18
  dishonoured chequedishonest intentfinancial obligationenhancement of sentencecriminal revisioninsufficient funds
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision and writ petition arose from a composite judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge-East, Islamabad, which upheld the conviction of the petitioner under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and a sentence of two years' rigorous imprisonment. The petitioner sought acquittal, while the complainant sought enhancement of the sentence. The core legal questions were whether the prosecution established the essential ingredients of Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, and whether the sentence should be enhanced. The High Court observed that the prosecution successfully proved the four essential ingredients of the offence: the cheque was duly issued, with dishonest intent, for repayment of a loan or fulfillment of an obligation, and was dishonoured on presentation. The Court held that the petitioner issued the cheque knowing his account had insufficient funds, establishing dishonest intent under Section 24 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. Regarding enhancement, the Court ruled that sentencing is a discretionary matter based on the facts of each case. Consequently, both the revision petition and the writ petition were dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • What are the essential pre-requisites required to attract the provisions of Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • How is 'dishonestly' defined and applied under Section 24 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 in the context of issuing a cheque with insufficient funds?
  • Does Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 stipulate a specific time period within which a holder must present a cheque to the bank for encashment?
  • Under what circumstances can an appellate or revisional court decline to enhance a sentence awarded by a trial court for an offence under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  Read full judgment →
• Shaza Tehseen vs Tehseen Butt, etc2022 PLJ Islamabad 129 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-04-29Read full judgment →
• Shaza Tehseen vs Tehseen Butt and others2022 CLC 1521 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-04-29Read full judgment →
• Shahzada Rimmal Jamil vs The Chairman, CDA, etc2022 IHC 102 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-03-25Read full judgment →
• Shahid Habib vs Federation of Pakistan, etc2022 IHC 62 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-03-14Read full judgment →
• Shah Zaman vs Federation of Pakistan and others2022 IHC 158, 2025 PTD 586 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-05-20Read full judgment →
• Shah Rukh Jamal vs National Accountability Bureau, Islamabad, etc2022 PLJ Islamabad 1 · Islamabad High Court · 2021-11-15Read full judgment →
• Shah Rukh Jamal vs National Accountability Bureau, Islamabad and others2022 PLD Islamabad 1 · Islamabad High Court · 2021-11-15
  National Accountability Bureauseizure of propertycase propertyspecial law versus general lawreasonable grounds to believeconstitutional jurisdictionfreezing of assets
  Summary & questions settled

  This consolidated constitutional petition involves the seizure of five vehicles by the National Accountability Bureau during a raid on a property jointly inhabited by the respondent and his close relatives, the petitioners. The petitioners, who are not accused of any offence and operate independent businesses, sought the return of their vehicles, which were dismissed by the Accountability Court on the ground that the vehicles constituted case property. The Islamabad High Court examined whether the Bureau could resort to general provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, or if it was strictly bound by the special statutory mechanism under the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999. The Court held that the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 is a complete and self-contained special statute whose provisions regarding property seizure (sections 12, 13, and 23) override and are inconsistent with the general provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. The Court laid down the principle that the Bureau must meet the rigorous evidentiary threshold of having 'reasonable grounds to believe' that a property is connected with an offence before seizing it, and cannot do so on mere suspicion. Consequently, the impugned orders were set aside and the matter was remanded for the release of the vehicles to their lawful owners.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the provisions of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 regarding the seizure and freezing of property override the general provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898?
  • What is the required evidentiary threshold for the National Accountability Bureau to interfere with or seize property under the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999?
  • Can the National Accountability Bureau seize or detain property belonging to third parties who are not accused in any pending inquiry or investigation on the basis of mere suspicion?
  • Does an Accountability Court have exclusive jurisdiction to adjudicate claims and objections regarding property seized under the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999?
  Read full judgment →
• Shah Muhammad Khan vs Election Commission of Pakistan through Secretary and 2 others2022 CLC 1315 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-02-11Read full judgment →
• Shafiq A. Shahzad vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Commerce & Textile & 2 others2022 IHC 240 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-09-29
  civil serviceactualization of promotiondepartmental representationterms and conditions of serviceArticle 212 barFederal Service Tribunaldetermination of fitness
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a civil servant serving abroad, invoked the constitutional jurisdiction of the Islamabad High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, challenging a notification declaring that his promotion to BPS-20 had lapsed for failure to actualize it within one year under rule 5(5) of the Civil Servants Promotion (BPS-18 to BPS-20) Rules 2019. The authorities had dismissed the petitioner's departmental representation under section 22(2) of the Civil Servants Act 1973 and rule 4(1) of the Civil Servants (Appeals) Rules 1977 on the ground that it questioned fitness. The High Court observed that the grievance pertained to terms and conditions of service rather than fitness determination, rendering the representation competent. However, due to the constitutional bar under Article 212 of the Constitution, High Court jurisdiction over terms and conditions committed to the Federal Service Tribunal was barred. Consequently, the High Court set aside the letter declaring the representation incompetent and remanded it to the competent authority for decision in accordance with law.

  Questions settled

  • Does the bar under section 22(2) of the Civil Servants Act 1973 apply to a representation challenging the lapsing of a promotion due to non-actualization?
  • Does the constitutional bar under Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 preclude High Court jurisdiction even where the impugned action is alleged to be without jurisdiction, coram non judice, or in violation of fundamental rights?
  • Can questions regarding the vires of rules affecting a civil servant's terms and conditions of service be adjudicated by the Federal Service Tribunal?
  Read full judgment →
• Sardar Shahid Ahmed Khan vs Farzeen Irtizaz& another2022 IHC 174 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-05-23
  pre-arrest bailbail cancellationdishonour of chequeprohibitory clausecriminal proceduretentative assessment
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal miscellaneous petition was filed seeking the cancellation of pre-arrest bail granted to the respondent in a case registered under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioner contended that the respondent was a habitual offender and had absconded, rendering the bail order arbitrary. The core legal question was whether the circumstances warranted the cancellation of the pre-arrest bail. The Islamabad High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the impugned order was just and proper. The Court observed that the offence under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 carries a punishment of up to three years and does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, where bail is the rule and refusal is the exception. The Court reiterated the principle that cancellation of bail requires strong, exceptional grounds, such as misuse of bail, interference with evidence, or fresh material, none of which were established by the petitioner. The Court further noted that allegations of absconsion should be addressed to the trial court.

  Questions settled

  • What are the essential grounds required for the cancellation of bail?
  • Does the offence under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is the grant of bail the rule and refusal the exception for offences not falling within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Samsons Group of Companies vs Panthers Developers and others2022 MLD 1514 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-03-31Read full judgment →
• Samsons Group of Companies vs Panthers Developers and 2 others2022 PLJ Islamabad 106 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-03-31Read full judgment →
• Samsons Group of Companies vs Panther Developers and others2022 [M] CLR 548, 2022 CLD 932 · Islamabad High Court · 2021-12-17
  arbitration agreementsufficient causeOrder VII Rule 11 CPCconstitutional petitionnon est factumratification by conductostensible authorityrevisional jurisdictioncosts of litigation
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, challenged an order of the Additional District and Sessions Judge dismissing the petitioner's application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which opposed an application under section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940. The core legal questions involved the applicability of Order VII Rule 11 CPC to section 20 arbitration proceedings, the constitutional remedy available following the elimination of civil revisions by the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2020, and the doctrines of non est factum, ratification, and corporate authority under the Companies Act, 2017. The Islamabad High Court held that Order VII Rule 11 CPC is inapplicable to proceedings under section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, and that civil courts must instead apply the statutory test of sufficient cause. Furthermore, the court held that lack of formal authorization for a contract can be cured by ratification through conduct, and that arbitration agreements involving corporate entities remain governed by the Arbitration Act rather than the special jurisdiction of the Company Bench. The petition was dismissed with costs.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 can be invoked in proceedings under section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940?
  • How does the elimination of civil revision by the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2020 affect the High Court's constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199?
  • Can a contract executed on behalf of a company without a formal board resolution be ratified through the subsequent conduct of the company?
  • Does an arbitration agreement involving a company fall exclusively within the jurisdiction of the Company Bench under the Companies Act, 2017?
  • Is a plea of non est factum rebuttable by attendant circumstances and the subsequent performance of a contract?
  Read full judgment →
• Salman Ahmad vs Syed Ali Raza Naqvi and another2022 MLD 1342 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-06-09
  bail cancellationpre-arrest bailtrial in progressmisuse of libertycriminal breach of trustdelay in trial
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought the cancellation of pre-arrest bail granted to respondent No. 1 by the Additional Sessions Judge-V, East-Islamabad in a case concerning criminal breach of trust and financial loss caused to a corporate entity through the unauthorized sale of company SIM cards. The core legal question was whether sufficient grounds existed to recall the concession of pre-arrest bail already extended to the accused. The Islamabad High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the principles governing the cancellation of bail are distinct from those for its initial grant, requiring very strong and exceptional circumstances which the petitioner failed to establish. Furthermore, the court observed that the trial had already commenced, charges were framed, and the complainant party was responsible for causing delays. The key principle laid down is that superior courts are reluctant to interfere with bail concession once granted unless patent illegality, misuse of liberty, or other exceptional grounds are shown, and courts generally should not grant or cancel bail while the trial is actively in progress.

  Questions settled

  • Whether bail once granted can be cancelled without strong and exceptional grounds?
  • Should courts interfere with or cancel bail when the trial is already in progress?
  • What are the established principles governing the cancellation of pre-arrest bail under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Saleem Ullah Khan, Advocate vs Fowad Ahmed Chaudhary, Former2022 IHC 282 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-09-06
  contempt of courtscandalizing the courtfreedom of speechjudicial independencejudicial contemptcriminal contemptfair comment
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition sought the initiation of contempt proceedings against a former Federal Minister for allegedly derogatory remarks made regarding the Chief Justice of the Islamabad High Court during a television interview. The petitioner argued that the respondent's criticism of a judicial decision and his comments regarding a judge constituted criminal contempt. The core legal question was whether intemperate, partisan criticism of a delivered judgment constitutes judicial contempt or scandalizing the court, and how to balance freedom of speech under Article 19 of the Constitution with the need to protect the administration of justice. The Court dismissed the petition, holding that the law of contempt is not intended to shield judges from criticism or impose judicial censorship. It established that while scandalizing the court remains an offence, criticism of a judgment—even if harsh, partisan, or in bad taste—does not constitute contempt unless it impugns the integrity or impartiality of a judge or causes substantial detriment to the administration of justice. The Court emphasized that judicial legitimacy rests on the merit of decisions, not on suppressing public discourse.

  Questions settled

  • Does harsh or intemperate criticism of a delivered judicial judgment constitute contempt of court?
  • What is the threshold for finding that speech scandalizes the court or brings it into hatred or ridicule?
  • How must a court balance the constitutional right to freedom of speech against the need to protect the administration of justice?
  • Is the intent of the speaker relevant in determining judicial contempt versus criminal contempt?
  Read full judgment →
• Saleem Ullah Khan, Advocate vs Fawad Ahmed Chaudhary, Former2022 IHC 218 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-09-06
  contempt of courtjudicial contemptfreedom of speechscandalizing the courtadministration of justicecriticism of judgmentscontempt proceedings
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, an advocate, sought contempt proceedings against a former Federal Minister for making disparaging remarks regarding the Chief Justice of the Islamabad High Court in a television interview. The core legal question was whether intemperate criticism of a court’s judgment constitutes contempt of court under the Constitution and the Contempt of Court Ordinance, 2003. The Court dismissed the petition, holding that the power of contempt is an extraordinary jurisdiction that must be exercised with restraint. The Court established that the law of contempt is not intended to shield judges from criticism or to censor public discourse regarding judicial decisions. While freedom of speech is subject to reasonable restrictions, criticism of a decided judgment—even if harsh, partisan, or in bad taste—does not constitute contempt unless it impugns the integrity or impartiality of a judge or causes substantial detriment to the administration of justice. The Court emphasized that judicial legitimacy rests on the merit of its reasoning rather than the suppression of public opinion.

  Questions settled

  • Does intemperate criticism of a court judgment constitute contempt of court?
  • Is the power of contempt intended to shield judges from public scrutiny or criticism?
  • What is the distinction between criminal contempt and judicial contempt under the Contempt of Court Ordinance, 2003?
  • Under what circumstances does criticism of a judge or court judgment constitute scandalizing the court?
  Read full judgment →
• Salah Uddin Khan vs Public Procurement Regulatory Authority and others2022 CLC 497 · Islamabad High Court · 2021-12-07Read full judgment →
• Sajid Ullah Khan and another vs Federation Of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Communication, Pak Secretariat, Islamabad and 2 others2022 PLC (C.S.) 296 · Islamabad High Court
  civil servanttransfer and postingservice tribunalconstitutional jurisdictionmaintainabilityterms and conditions of servicewedlock policy
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners, serving as Patrol Officers in the National Highways and Motorways Police, challenged their transfer order before the Islamabad High Court through a constitutional petition, contending it violated the wedlock policy and departmental rules. The core legal question addressed by the court was whether a High Court has jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution to entertain a writ petition filed by civil servants regarding matters of transfer and posting, or if such matters fall exclusively within the jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal under Article 212. The Islamabad High Court dismissed the petition as not maintainable, holding that matters of transfer and posting form an integral part of the terms and conditions of service of civil servants, thereby ousting the jurisdiction of civil courts and High Courts by virtue of the constitutional bar contained in Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973. The key principle laid down is that disputes concerning the transfer and posting of civil servants exclusively fall within the domain of the Service Tribunal, and constitutional jurisdiction cannot be invoked to bypass this forum.

  Questions settled

  • Does the High Court have jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution to adjudicate upon the transfer and posting of civil servants?
  • Whether matters relating to the transfer and posting of a civil servant form part of the terms and conditions of service under Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  • Can a civil servant invoke the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court to challenge a departmental transfer order?
  Read full judgment →
• Saira Yousaf and others vs Federation of Pakistan and others2022 IHC 140 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-03-09
  civil servantdeputationabsorptionvested rightwedlock policylienintra court appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This Intra Court Appeal challenges a judgment passed by a learned Single Judge-in-Chambers dismissing a writ petition filed by female teachers working on deputation under the Federal Directorate of Education, Islamabad, who sought permanent absorption under the Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules 1973. The core legal question was whether a civil servant on deputation has a vested right to permanent absorption in the borrowing department under the Wedlock Policy or amendments made to the rules. The court held that a civil servant on deputation has no vested right to stay on deputation or seek absorption, and that the borrowing department cannot be compelled to absorb an employee against its will. The court further held that amendments creating exemptions for deputation periods do not confer a right to absorption, and that termination of lien in the parent department does not occur until confirmation in the borrowing department. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Does a civil servant on deputation have a vested right to seek permanent absorption in the borrowing department?
  • Whether amendments to the Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules 1973 regarding deputation create a right to absorption under the Wedlock Policy?
  • Can a borrowing department be compelled to absorb a civil servant on deputation against its needs and desires?
  • When does a government servant on deputation lose their lien on a permanent post in their parent office?
  Read full judgment →
• Saim Sadiq and others vs Muhammad Asif2022 PLJ Islamabad 12, 2022 MLD 1490 · Islamabad High Court · 2021-11-18Read full judgment →
• Saif Power Limited vs Federation of Pakistan and others2022 PLJ Islamabad 115 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-06-06Read full judgment →
• Rukhsana Bibi vs The State and another2022 PCRLJ 1806 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-04-21
  pre-arrest bailconspiracyabetmentmala fidecriminal conspiracyinvestigation processfair trial
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for pre-arrest bail filed by an accused woman in a murder case registered under sections 302, 109, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, accused of hatching a conspiracy, was entitled to pre-arrest bail despite being nominated in the FIR. The court held that the prosecution failed to provide solid incriminating material to substantiate the conspiracy charge, noting that the FIR and statements under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 lacked specific details regarding the time, place, or nature of the alleged conspiracy. Consequently, the court confirmed the pre-arrest bail. The judgment reaffirms that pre-arrest bail is an extraordinary remedy to protect citizens from the abuse of police power. It establishes that where incriminating material is absent, the accused's implication and the police's insistence on arrest are sufficient indicators of mala fide, negating the requirement for independent proof of malice. Furthermore, allegations of conspiracy must be based on concrete evidence, not mere surmises or conjectures, to justify the denial of bail.

  Questions settled

  • Does the absence of incriminating material against an accused in a conspiracy charge constitute sufficient grounds for granting pre-arrest bail?
  • Is independent proof of mala fide required to obtain pre-arrest bail when the prosecution lacks evidence connecting the accused to the alleged offence?
  • Can a court rely on surmises or conjectures regarding conspiracy to deny pre-arrest bail?
  • Does the right to a fair trial under Article 10A of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 influence the court's approach to granting pre-arrest bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Rizwan Shoukat Silk Factory and others vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Law and Justice Division and 3 others2022 CLD 1516 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-09-08Read full judgment →
• Rizwan Hussain vs The State and another2022 IHC 24 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-03-30
  pre-arrest bailfurther inquiryprohibitory clausetentative assessmentFIR delaycriminal investigation
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for pre-arrest bail arises from FIR No. 25/2022 registered under Section 337-F(vi) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Bhara Kahu, Islamabad. The petitioner sought pre-arrest bail after the Additional Sessions Judge declined his initial application. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to pre-arrest bail given the conflicting versions of the occurrence—the complainant alleging assault with a rod, while the police investigation suggested the complainant's injuries resulted from a fall due to rain. The Court held that the case warranted further inquiry, noting that the medico-legal report was obtained on the day of the occurrence, yet the FIR was registered two days later, casting doubt on the prosecution's narrative and suggesting potential consultation. Furthermore, the Court observed that the alleged offence did not fall within the prohibitory clause and the petitioner had no prior criminal record. Consequently, the Court confirmed the ad-interim pre-arrest bail, emphasizing that the observations were tentative and did not prejudice the trial court's final determination of guilt.

  Questions settled

  • Does a two-day delay in FIR registration, where the medico-legal report was obtained immediately, constitute grounds for further inquiry in a bail application?
  • Is an offence punishable by a term not falling within the prohibitory clause a relevant factor for granting pre-arrest bail?
  • Can a court confirm pre-arrest bail when police investigation findings contradict the complainant's version of the incident?
  Read full judgment →
• Reliance It Solutions (Private) Limited vs Federation of Pakistan and others2022 P C T L R 255 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-01-17Read full judgment →
• Rehan Khalid vs Mst. Uzma Nawaz and 3 others2022 MLD 272 · Islamabad High Court · 2021-07-26Read full judgment →
• Rashid Mehmood vs The State2022 IHC 222, 2024 PCRLJ 300 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-08-24
  narcotics possessionsafe custody of samplesreduction of sentencerecovery witnessControl of Narcotic Substances Actcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant under Section 9-C of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 for the alleged possession of 1375 grams of charas and sentencing him to rigorous imprisonment. The core legal questions involve evaluating the sufficiency and credibility of police-based recovery evidence, the reliability of safe custody and transmission of samples, and the discretionary power of the court regarding the quantum of sentence. The Islamabad High Court maintained the conviction, holding that the positive chemical examiner report and recovery established the offense, but considered mitigating factors such as the appellant being a first offender, the less harmful nature of the substance, and time already served. Consequently, the High Court upheld the conviction while reducing the substantive sentence to the period already undergone.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the positive report of a Chemical Analyst is sufficient to substantiate a narcotics conviction despite minor discrepancies in witness testimonies?
  • Can the appellate court reduce a narcotics sentence to the period already undergone based on mitigating circumstances such as being a first offender?
  • Does the absence of public witnesses invalidate a recovery effected by police officials during routine patrolling?
  Read full judgment →
• Rana Tahir Hassan Khan vs Capital Development Authority and others2022 CLC 454 · Islamabad High Court · 2021-11-03Read full judgment →
• Rana Masood Iqbal vs Muhammad Ayub Iqbal Rana2022 CLC 1858 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-06-06Read full judgment →
• Raja Zahoor Ahmed vs Capital Development Authority through Chairman2022 PLD Islamabad 22 · Islamabad High Court · 2021-04-07Read full judgment →
• Rai Nasir Iqbal vs Federation of Pakistan through Chairman NAB etc2022 IHC 68 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-03-11
  writ petitionstatutory remedyexhaustion of remediesservice mattercondonation of delayNational Accountability Bureaumisconduct
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner challenged his removal from service by the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) through a writ petition, alleging procedural irregularities and malice. The core legal question was whether a constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 is maintainable when a specific statutory remedy of appeal exists under the National Accountability Bureau's Employees Terms & Condition of Service (TCS-2002). The Court held that the petition was not maintainable as the petitioner failed to exhaust the statutory remedy of appeal provided under Rule 13.01 of the TCS-2002. The Court emphasized that constitutional jurisdiction cannot be invoked to circumvent established statutory procedures. Consequently, the Court disposed of the petition, directing the petitioner to file an appeal before the appropriate forum. Crucially, the Court established that filing a writ petition within the limitation period prescribed for an appeal constitutes 'sufficient ground' to condone the delay in filing the statutory appeal, thereby preserving the petitioner's right to seek redress through the proper legal channel.

  Questions settled

  • Is a writ petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 maintainable when a statutory remedy of appeal is available under the TCS-2002?
  • Does the filing of a writ petition within the limitation period for an appeal constitute sufficient ground to condone the delay in filing the statutory appeal?
  • Can interlocutory orders like suspension and charge sheets be challenged separately when they merge into a final order of removal from service?
  Read full judgment →
• Raheem Ullah Khan vs The State2022 KLR Criminal Cases 221 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-03-15
  fugitive disentitlementproclaimed offenderright of audienceabscondencecontempt of courtdismissal in liminepower of attorney
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns an appeal filed by an appellant who had been declared a proclaimed offender and against whom perpetual non-bailable warrants were issued by the trial court. The core legal question was whether an absconding accused, who is a fugitive from justice, possesses the right of audience before the appellate court and whether a power of attorney executed by such an individual is legally valid. The Court held that the appeal was not maintainable and dismissed it in limine. Applying the doctrine of fugitive disentitlement, the Court ruled that a fugitive from law forfeits their right of audience and cannot seek the court's assistance while simultaneously frustrating its processes. The Court affirmed that courts will not act in aid of injustice or allow the abuse of judicial process. Consequently, an appeal filed by an absconder is not properly constituted, and counsel representing such a person without ensuring their surrender violates professional obligations. The principle established is that an absconder must surrender to the trial court before they can be granted any hearing or relief by an appellate forum.

  Questions settled

  • Can an appeal filed by an absconder be heard on its merits by an appellate court?
  • Is a power of attorney executed by a fugitive from justice legally valid for the purpose of representation in court?
  • Does an absconder have a right of audience before a court while remaining a fugitive from justice?
  • Can a court dismiss an appeal in limine on the basis of the doctrine of fugitive disentitlement?
  Read full judgment →
• Qutab Ali Shah vs The State and another2022 YLR 366 · Islamabad High Court · 2021-01-05
  post-arrest bailcriminal breach of trustembezzlementnon-prohibitory clausefurther inquiry
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought post-arrest bail in case FIR No. 71 of 2019 registered under sections 408 and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code at Police Station Tarnol, Islamabad, relating to an alleged criminal breach of trust and embezzlement. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to the concession of bail when the alleged offence did not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and investigation was complete. The Islamabad High Court accepted the petition and admitted the petitioner to bail, holding that offences falling outside the prohibitory clause should generally be considered favorably for bail unless exceptional circumstances exist, and that unjustified incarceration cannot be adequately compensated upon ultimate acquittal. The key principle laid down is that where an offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, the grant of bail is the rule and its refusal is an exception.

  Questions settled

  • Whether bail should be granted when an offence falls outside the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is an accused entitled to post-arrest bail when investigation is complete and no exceptional circumstances for refusal exist?
  • Does a case of further inquiry warrant the grant of bail under section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Qazi Siddique Akbar through Legal Heirs vs Hassan Akhtar and others2022 CLC 73 · Islamabad High Court · 2021-08-24Read full judgment →
• Qasim Siddique Zia vs M. Sabir Bhatti etc2022 IHC 166 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-05-16
  acquittal appealdouble presumption of innocencecar theftcriminal breach of trustcontradictory testimony
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment passed by the Judicial Magistrate Section-30 Islamabad-West, whereby respondent No.1 was acquitted of charges relating to car theft, cheating, forgery, and administering poison. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had successfully proved the guilt of the acquitted respondent beyond a reasonable doubt, particularly in light of contradictions in testimony and the absence of primary evidence linking him to the crime. The Islamabad High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the respondent's involvement, noting that the star witness did not place the respondent at the scene of the drugging, the car was recovered from a co-accused, and glaring contradictions existed regarding an alleged agreement to return the vehicle. The court reaffirmed the principle that an accused who earns an acquittal carries a double presumption of innocence, which cannot be dislodged unless the trial court's view is perverse or impossible.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an acquittal judgment passed after a full-length trial can be set aside on the mere possibility of a contrary view?
  • Does the failure of the star witness to implicate the accused at the material time of the offense render the charge groundless?
  • What is the evidentiary weight of a double presumption of innocence enjoyed by an accused who has earned an acquittal?
  Read full judgment →
• Qamar Iqbal vs The State2022 IHC 44 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-04-05
  post-arrest bailnon-prohibitory clausefurther inquirycriminal fraudbail principlesimpersonation
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition sought post-arrest bail for the petitioner in FIR No. 494/21, involving charges under Sections 411, 419, 420, 468, and 471 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioner, not named in the original FIR, was implicated following a disclosure statement made while in custody for a separate matter. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the nature of the alleged offences and the absence of specific naming in the FIR. The court held that the petitioner was entitled to bail, noting that the alleged offences fell outside the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, making bail the rule rather than the exception. Furthermore, the court observed that the petitioner was not a previous convict, and there was no evidence suggesting a likelihood of abscondence, tampering with evidence, or repeating the offence. The court clarified that the mere registration of other FIRs does not constitute a legal bar to the grant of bail. Consequently, the petition was allowed, subject to the furnishing of bail bonds.

  Questions settled

  • Does the mere registration of other FIRs against an accused constitute a legal bar to the grant of bail?
  • Is bail the rule and refusal the exception for offences falling outside the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can an accused who was not named in the FIR be granted bail when their involvement is based on a disclosure statement made while in custody for another case?
  Read full judgment →
• Qaiser Jabbar vs Syed Mati Ullah Shah and another2022 YLR 1696 · Islamabad High Court · 2021-08-23
  illegal dispossessioncriminal revisioncivil disputeland grabberqabza groupabuse of processpossession
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition was filed under Sections 435 and 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to challenge an order passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge dismissing the petitioner's complaint under Sections 3 and 4 of the Illegal Dispossession Act 2005 as non-maintainable. The core legal question revolved around whether a complaint under the Illegal Dispossession Act 2005 could be maintained where a bona fide civil dispute was already pending between the parties and the accused lacked the credentials of a professional land grabber or Qabza group. The Islamabad High Court dismissed the revision petition, holding that the Illegal Dispossession Act 2005 is not meant to settle civil disputes or act as a substitute for civil litigation, and that its provisions primarily target land grabbers and criminal mafias rather than individuals involved in bona fide property disputes. The key principles laid down include that criminal processes under the Illegal Dispossession Act 2005 cannot be abused to exert pressure in civil matters, and complaints must be supported by cogent evidence establishing unlawful dispossession by persons with land-grabbing antecedents.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a complaint under the Illegal Dispossession Act 2005 is maintainable when a bona fide civil dispute is already pending between the parties?
  • Can the provisions of the Illegal Dispossession Act 2005 be invoked against persons who do not possess the credentials or antecedents of a land grabber or Qabza group?
  • Is a criminal revision petition competent against an order dismissing a complaint under the Illegal Dispossession Act 2005?
  Read full judgment →
• Qaisar Abbas and another vs Federation Of Pakistan, through Secretary2022 CLC 146 · Islamabad High Court · 2021-06-24Read full judgment →
• Prof. Dr. Qazi Tahir Uddin vs The Secretary, Pakistan Medical Commission, Islamabad and 3 others2022 PLC (C.S.) 805 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-01-17
  statutory tenuresecurity of tenurewrongful terminationwrit jurisdictionstatutory interpretationouster of jurisdictiondue processPakistan Medical Commission
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a Member (Examinations) of the National Medical Authority (NMA), challenged the termination of his appointment by the Pakistan Medical Commission (PMC). The core legal question was whether a statutory appointee, appointed for a fixed four-year term under the Pakistan Medical Commission Act, 2020, could be removed via a contractual termination clause, or if such removal required adherence to the statutory inquiry process prescribed in Section 15(7) of the Act. The Court held that the termination was unlawful, ruling that statutory tenure and removal procedures cannot be circumvented by contractual terms. The Court emphasized that the inclusion of a termination clause in the appointment letter was an attempt to bypass the statutory mandate, rendering such clauses surplusage. The Court further clarified that the Medical Tribunal lacked jurisdiction over this matter as the PMC Act had not been notified under the Medical Tribunal Act, 2020. Consequently, the Court set aside the termination, affirming that security of tenure is essential for the independent discharge of statutory duties, and ordered the petitioner's reinstatement.

  Questions settled

  • Can a statutory appointee with a fixed tenure be removed through a contractual termination clause?
  • Does the Medical Tribunal have jurisdiction to hear appeals against decisions made under the Pakistan Medical Commission Act, 2020, without a specific notification from the Federal Government?
  • Can parties contract out of the beneficial provisions of a statute regarding tenure and removal?
  • Is the ouster of the jurisdiction of superior courts to be inferred by implication?
  Read full judgment →
• Prof. Dr. Qazi Tahir Uddin vs The Secretary, Pakistan Medical Commission2022 [M] CLR 337 · Islamabad High Court
  statutory tenurepremature terminationfixed-term appointmentmaster and servantdue processcontractual employmentstatutory protection
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, appointed as Member (Examinations) of the National Medical Authority under Section 15 of the Pakistan Medical Commission Act, 2020 for a fixed statutory term of four years, challenged the termination of his appointment via a contractual notice period clause. The core legal question was whether a statutory officer holding a fixed-term tenure under the Act could be prematurely removed through a contractual termination clause or in any manner other than the mandatory inquiry procedure prescribed by Section 15(7) of the Act. The Islamabad High Court held that the statutory provisions of the Act must prevail over inconsistent contractual terms, rendering any termination clause enabling removal without an inquiry and statutory grounds null and void. The court ruled that a fixed-term statutory appointment cannot be curtailed except through the due process and specific grounds stipulated in the governing statute, thereby setting aside the termination letter and allowing the petition.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a fixed-term statutory appointment can be prematurely terminated through a contractual notice clause inconsistent with the governing statute?
  • Does the Medical Tribunal have jurisdiction to hear appeals against decisions of authorities formed under the Pakistan Medical Commission Act, 2020 without a notification under Section 6(2) of the Medical Tribunal Act, 2020?
  • Can a statutory body remove a member of the National Medical Authority without conducting an inquiry on the grounds specified in Section 15(7) of the Pakistan Medical Commission Act, 2020?
  • Do statutory provisions regarding tenure override conflicting terms and conditions contained in an employment contract or offer letter?
  Read full judgment →