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.

• Muhammad Babar Mumtaz vs Federal Public Service Commission (FPSC)2025 IHC 302 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-04-30Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Azeem Mirza vs Learned Ex-Officio Justice of Peace, etc2025 IHC 414 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-05-22Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ayaz Khan vs Ms. Iman Haider Syed2025 IHC 206, 2025 PLJ Islamabad 224 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-03-21Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Awais Qarni vs The State, etc2025 IHC 100 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-03-25
  post-arrest baildishonoured chequeprohibitory clauseQarz-e-Hasnacriminal liabilitycivil remedy
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail in a case involving the alleged dishonour of cheques under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the nature of the offence and the existence of ongoing civil litigation regarding the underlying financial transaction. The Court held that the offence under Section 489-F is punishable by up to three years imprisonment, placing it outside the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Consequently, the Court reaffirmed the principle that in non-bailable offences punishable by less than ten years, the grant of bail is the rule and refusal the exception. Furthermore, the Court established that the mere existence of other criminal cases or the involvement of substantial financial amounts does not disentitle an accused to bail if a prima facie case is made out, and that civil remedies under Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 remain available for recovery disputes.

  Questions settled

  • Does the involvement of a substantial financial amount in a cheque dishonour case justify the refusal of bail?
  • Is an accused disentitled to bail solely due to the registration of other criminal cases against them?
  • 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?
  • Can detention be used as a strategy for punishment when the investigation is already concluded?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aurangzeb vs Mansoor Ahmed Qureshi & 4 Others2025 IHC 210 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-03-27Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Atif vs The State2025 IHC 442 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-07-04
  dishonour of chequefinancial obligationpresumption of considerationburden of proofcriminal jurisprudencemiscarriage of justiceacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition challenges the concurrent judgments of the trial and appellate courts, which convicted the petitioner under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the dishonour of a cheque. The core legal questions were whether the prosecution established the existence of a valid underlying financial obligation beyond reasonable doubt and whether the presumption of consideration under the Negotiable Instruments Act 1881 applies to criminal trials. The High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the underlying financial obligation, as the complainant provided no evidence of the alleged tax liability, payment, or contractual relationship. The Court ruled that the presumption of consideration under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act 1881 is strictly applicable to civil disputes and cannot dispense with the prosecution's burden to independently prove the actus reus in criminal proceedings. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction, emphasizing that the mere dishonour of a cheque does not constitute an offence under Section 489-F without proof of an underlying financial obligation.

  Questions settled

  • Does the presumption of consideration under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act 1881 apply to criminal trials?
  • Is the mere dishonour of a cheque sufficient to constitute an offence under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 without proof of an underlying financial obligation?
  • Can a conviction under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 be sustained where the prosecution fails to prove the existence of a valid financial transaction?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Arshad vs Zarai Taraqiati Bank Limited (Ztbl) Through Its2025 IHC 344 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
• Muhammad Arshad vs Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Islamabad2025 IHC 516 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
• Muhammad Amir Thahim vs Federation of Pakistan, etc2025 IHC 176 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-02-18Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akbar Chohan vs Sheikh Ansar Aziz, Chairman CDA, Islamabad and another2025 IHC 508 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
• Muhammad Adeel vs The State2025 IHC 166 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-03-13
  control of narcotic substancesreduction of sentencefirst offendercriminal appealcharas recoveryquantum of sentencejudicial discretion
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, for the possession of 1130 grams of charas. The core legal question addressed is whether a lenient view and reduction of sentence to the period already undergone is warranted where the appellant is a first offender, has no prior criminal record, and has served a significant portion of his sentence. The Islamabad High Court held that while the conviction on merits is not challenged and is maintained, the sentence of rigorous imprisonment is reduced to the period already undergone by the appellant, keeping the fine and default sentence intact, in view of mitigating circumstances and precedents. The key principle laid down is that courts may exercise judicial discretion to depart from standard sentencing norms and reduce sentences in narcotics cases for first offenders who have undergone substantial incarceration, provided cogent reasons are recorded.

  Questions settled

  • Can an appellate court reduce a narcotics convict's sentence to the period already undergone when the conviction itself is not challenged?
  • Is a first offender entitled to a lenient view in sentencing under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997?
  • May a court depart from standard sentencing norms in narcotics cases upon recording cogent reasons?
  Read full judgment →
• Mudassar Malik vs Federation of Pakistan & another2025 IHC 228 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-04-10Read full judgment →
• Mudassar Ali and another vs Nazir Ahmed Khan and others2025 IHC 422 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-05-27Read full judgment →
• Mubashir Raza vs Idris Ali, etc2025 IHC 522 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-07-09Read full judgment →
• Mst. Sania Batool vs The State and another2025 MLD 339 · Islamabad High Court · 2024-10-01
  post-arrest bailfemale accusedfurther inquirywelfare of minorprohibitory clausebail as ruletentative assessment
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by a female accused in a case involving allegations of abduction, assault, and extortion under Sections 365-A, 292-A, 506(ii), 337, 170, 171, 342, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, a female with a suckling infant, was entitled to bail given the evidentiary gaps and her personal circumstances. The Court held that the petitioner was entitled to bail, noting the lack of recovery of incriminating evidence, the absence of expert reports regarding digital evidence, and the fact that the investigation was complete. The Court emphasized that bail for women, as per the first proviso to Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, is a rule rather than an exception, even in offences falling within the prohibitory clause. Furthermore, the Court reaffirmed the principle that the welfare of a minor child is incompatible with jail life, and that bail is not a punishment but a mechanism to ensure the accused faces trial without unjustified incarceration.

  Questions settled

  • Is a female accused with a suckling infant entitled to bail even in offences falling under the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does the presence of a suckling child in jail with the mother constitute a ground for granting bail?
  • What are the exceptions that justify the refusal of bail to a female accused?
  • Can bail be granted when there are no reasonable grounds to believe the accused committed the offence, but sufficient grounds exist for further inquiry?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Saima Bibi alias Shama vs The State2025 IHC 102 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-02-27
  post-arrest bailnarcoticsfemale accusedsuckling babydrug traffickingstatutory barprima facie case
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for post-arrest bail arises from a criminal case involving the recovery of 3600 grams of Charas from the petitioner, a female accused, registered under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, a woman with a suckling baby in custody, is entitled to the concession of bail solely on the grounds of her gender and the presence of her child, despite the recovery of a significant quantity of narcotics. The Court held that the petitioner is not entitled to bail. It reasoned that the recovery of a large quantity of narcotics prima facie connects the accused to the offense, and the mere presence of a suckling child does not override the serious nature of the crime or the statutory bars against bail in such cases. The Court emphasized that drug trafficking offenses often involve the exploitation of women and children as carriers, and courts must not allow such circumstances to be used as a lever for bail, particularly when the offense poses a threat to society.

  Questions settled

  • Does the presence of a suckling baby with a female accused automatically entitle her to the grant of post-arrest bail in narcotics cases?
  • Is a female accused involved in drug trafficking entitled to bail solely on the basis of her gender?
  • Does the recovery of a large quantity of narcotics constitute a sufficient ground to invoke the statutory bar against bail under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997?
  • Can the likelihood of repeating a narcotics offense be considered a valid ground for refusing bail to a female accused?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Saima Amjad vs Ministry Of Interior Through Secretary Interior, Etc2025 IHC 276 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-04-25Read full judgment →
• Mst. Safia Khanum and others vs Additional District Judge-II, East, Islamabad and others2025 IHC 380 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
• Mst. Robina Akhtar vs Learned Additional Sessions Judge/Ex-Officio Justice2025 IHC 416 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-05-22Read full judgment →
• Mst. Rabia Parveen vs Chaudhry Muhammad Tariq etc2025 IHC 116 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-02-27Read full judgment →
• Mst. Nighat Manzoor vs The State2025 IHC 70, 2025 PCRLJ 931 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-02-19
  post-arrest bailsmugglingcustoms offencefurther inquirybail for womenprohibitory clauseattempt to commit offence
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by a female petitioner accused of attempting to smuggle gold and jewelry through an international airport. The core legal questions were whether the possession of gold ornaments by a passenger who had not yet cleared immigration constitutes an attempt to smuggle under the Customs Act, 1969, and whether the petitioner, as a woman, is entitled to the benefit of the first proviso to Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court held that the prosecution's case was one of further inquiry because the petitioner had not yet crossed the point of no return in the departure process, and the investigation failed to substantiate the valuation of the gold or prove criminal intent. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that under the first proviso to Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, bail for women should generally be granted unless exceptional circumstances exist. The Court granted bail, establishing that mere possession of excess gold prior to immigration clearance does not automatically constitute an attempt to smuggle.

  Questions settled

  • Does the possession of gold ornaments by a passenger who has not yet cleared immigration constitute an attempt to smuggle under the Customs Act, 1969?
  • Is the prosecution required to substantiate the valuation of recovered goods to establish the quantum of sentence under the Customs Act, 1969?
  • Under what circumstances should bail be refused to a woman under the first proviso to Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Nighat Bibi, Mst. Zuhra Bibi vs The learned Asj_Ex-Officio Justice of Peace (West), Islamambad, etc2025 IHC 562 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-07-29Read full judgment →
• Mst. Naila Irum vs OGDCL and another2025 IHC 450 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-06-27Read full judgment →
• Mst. Kaniz Fatima & Another vs Federation Of Pakistan & 6 Others2025 IHC 230, 2025 PLJ Islamabad 254 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-04-07Read full judgment →
• Mst. Hameeda Parveen vs Medical Superintendent PESSI Hospital, I-12, Islamabad and others2025 IHC 82 · Islamabad High Court · 2021-08-10
  official accommodationequitable reliefclean hands doctrinedeclaration suitpermanent injunctionallotment policylegitimate expectancy
  Summary & questions settled

  This Regular First Appeal challenges a consolidated judgment and decree dismissing the appellant's suit for declaration and permanent injunction regarding the retention of official hospital accommodation, while decreeing the respondent's suit for mandatory injunction. The appellant, a Staff Nurse, was allotted official accommodation for a fixed period, evidenced by a departmental decision and an affidavit she signed, committing to vacate the premises by a specific date. The core legal question was whether the appellant could claim a right to retain possession beyond the period stipulated in her allotment order based on a plea of legitimate expectancy. The Court held that the appellant was bound by the terms of her allotment and her own affidavit. It emphasized that a suit for declaration and permanent injunction is a discretionary and equitable remedy, requiring the plaintiff to approach the court with clean hands. Finding that the appellant had accepted the temporary nature of the allotment and failed to adhere to her commitment, the Court upheld the dismissal of her suit, affirming that equitable relief cannot be granted to a party acting contrary to their own documented undertakings.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a plaintiff can claim a right to retain official accommodation beyond the period specified in the allotment order?
  • Is the relief of declaration under the Specific Relief Act 1877 a discretionary and equitable remedy?
  • Does a party who contradicts their own signed affidavit and documented undertaking forfeit the right to equitable relief?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Ghousia Shabbir Ullah vs National University Of Modern Languages, etc2025 IHC 288 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
• Mst. Farida Begum vs Learned Full Bench Members, National Industrial2025 IHC 350 · Islamabad High Court
  Voluntary Separation Schemepensionary benefitsestoppelgrievance noticelimitationlabor disputewrit petition
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a former Telephone Operator at Pakistan Telecommunication Company Limited (PTCL), challenged an order of the Full Bench of the National Industrial Relations Commission (NIRC) which had set aside a Single Member's order in her favor. The petitioner sought pensionary benefits, arguing her service length under the Voluntary Separation Scheme (VSS) was incorrectly calculated as 17 years instead of over 19 years. The respondents contended that the petitioner had voluntarily opted for the VSS, accepted all financial benefits, and that her grievance petition was barred by limitation. The Islamabad High Court examined whether an employee who voluntarily accepts VSS benefits can subsequently claim statutory pensionary benefits and whether the petition was time-barred. The Court held that VSS is a binding contract under the Contract Act, 1872, and employees who voluntarily accept its benefits are estopped from resiling to claim pensionary benefits. Furthermore, the petitioner failed to serve a mandatory grievance notice within ninety days under Section 33 of the Industrial Relations Act, 2012, making the petition hopelessly time-barred. The petition was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an employee who voluntarily accepts and receives financial benefits under a Voluntary Separation Scheme is legally estopped from subsequently claiming statutory pensionary benefits?
  • Is a Voluntary Separation Scheme, once opted for and accepted, considered a binding contract regulated under the Contract Act, 1872?
  • What is the legal consequence of failing to serve a timely grievance notice on an employer within the ninety-day statutory period prescribed under Section 33 of the Industrial Relations Act, 2012?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Ayesha vs Inspector General Of Police (Ig) Islamabad etc2025 IHC 580 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-09-02Read full judgment →
• Mst. Areeja Sidiqua vs Capital Development Authority through its2025 IHC 40 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
• Mst. Amber Fahad, Etc vs Ch. Iqbal Ahmed, Etc2025 IHC 222 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-04-14Read full judgment →
• Mst. Afia Qalandar Anjum vs The State & others2025 IHC 420 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-05-27Read full judgment →
• Ms. Nadia Sarwar vs Mr. Aqeel Abbas And 4 Others2025 IHC 16, 2025 PLC (C.S.) 358 · Islamabad High Court · 2024-12-31
  workplace harassmentFederal Ombudsmanrepresentation before Presidentstandard of proofspecial lawCode of Criminal Procedureretaliation at workplacemisreading of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition arises from an order passed by the President of Pakistan setting aside the judgment of the Federal Ombudsman for Protection against Harassment of Women at Workplace, which had found two bank employees guilty of workplace harassment and imposed major penalties. The core legal questions involved whether the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 applies to proceedings before the Ombudsman under the Protection against Harassment of Women at the Workplace Act 2010, whether evidence beyond initial departmental complaints is inadmissible as new pleas, and whether the Ombudsman's findings suffered from misreading of evidence. The Islamabad High Court held that the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 does not apply to the Ombudsman's proceedings as the Act is a special law providing its own flexible procedure, that pre-litigation departmental complaints are not formal pleadings and do not bar subsequent detailed evidence, and that the President's order was based on a misreading of evidence. The High Court restored the Ombudsman's judgment, laying down principles regarding the standard of proof in workplace harassment cases, the non-applicability of criminal procedure codes to specialized harassment tribunals without explicit provision, and the evaluation of corroborative witness testimony in workplace harassment claims.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 apply to proceedings before the Ombudsman under the Protection against Harassment of Women at the Workplace Act 2010?
  • Can evidence of harassment incidents not detailed in initial informal departmental complaints be treated as inadmissible new pleas before the Ombudsman?
  • Whether an internal bank inquiry committee constituted contrary to the mandatory requirements of the Protection against Harassment of Women at the Workplace Act 2010 has any legal sanctity?
  • What is the applicable standard of proof in cases concerning workplace harassment under the Protection against Harassment of Women at the Workplace Act 2010?
  Read full judgment →
• Mrs. Naina Syed, Mst. Naureen Ahmad Tarar vs The Secretary Ministry of Federal Education and Professional Training and others, Federal Board of Revenue and others2025 IHC 36 · Islamabad High Court
  doctrine of mergerexecution of decreeservice tribunalleave refusalconstitutional jurisdictioncivil servantsseniority dispute
  Summary & questions settled

  This common judgment by the Islamabad High Court addresses two service matters involving the execution and implementation of judgments passed by the Federal Service Tribunal and subsequently dealt with by the Supreme Court. In the first matter, the appellant sought implementation of a Supreme Court order refusing leave to appeal against a tribunal judgment, invoking Article 187(2) of the Constitution. In the second matter, the petitioner sought implementation of a Supreme Court order passed after granting leave to appeal. The core legal questions concern the application of the doctrine of merger to leave-refusal orders versus orders passed after granting leave, and whether the High Court or the Federal Service Tribunal possesses the primary jurisdiction to execute such orders under Article 187(2) of the Constitution read with Section 5(3) of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973. The Court held that the doctrine of merger does not apply when leave to appeal is refused, leaving the tribunal's original judgment intact, whereas an order passed on merits after granting leave attracts the doctrine of merger. Furthermore, with the insertion of Section 5(3) empowering the Federal Service Tribunal to execute its own decisions, matters pertaining to the implementation of service tribunal judgments or consequent Supreme Court appellate orders should be executed by the tribunal as the court of first instance. Consequently, the intra-court appeal was dismissed, and the writ petition was converted and transmitted to the Federal Service Tribunal for execution.

  Questions settled

  • Does the doctrine of merger apply when the Supreme Court refuses to grant leave to appeal against a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal?
  • Whether the High Court has concurrent jurisdiction under Article 187(2) of the Constitution to execute orders of the Supreme Court arising from service tribunal judgments?
  • Does the Federal Service Tribunal have the power to execute its own decisions under Section 5(3) of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973?
  • Which forum is competent to execute an appellate order of the Supreme Court modifying a service tribunal judgment?
  Read full judgment →
• Mrs. Anjum Malik and others vs Mst. Neelofer Malik and others2025 IHC 184 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-03-28Read full judgment →
• Mr. Hassan Najam, Natalia Najam And Another vs The Judge Family Court2025 IHC 348 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
• Mol Pakistan Oil & Gas, Pakistan Oil Field Limited, Al-Haj Pakistan2025 IHC 216 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
• Mohsin Ali vs The State and another2025 IHC 372 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-06-02
  abductioncriminal appealbenefit of doubtsupplementary statementrecovery evidencemedical examinationpresumption of innocence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence under Section 365-B of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the alleged abduction of the complainant's daughter for Zina. The core legal question concerns whether the prosecution proved the charge beyond a reasonable doubt, given the delayed nomination of the accused, the unnatural circumstances of the alleged recovery, and the victim's refusal of a medical examination. The High Court held that the prosecution's case was riddled with doubts, rendering the conviction unsustainable. The Court emphasized that a delayed supplementary statement naming an accused without explanation is inherently suspicious and lacks evidentiary value. Furthermore, the Court highlighted that the absence of independent witnesses during a recovery in a populated area, combined with the victim's refusal to undergo a medical examination, severely weakens the prosecution's narrative. The Court reiterated the principle that if a single circumstance creates a reasonable doubt in a prudent mind, the accused is entitled to an acquittal as a matter of right, not grace, based on the presumption of innocence. Consequently, the conviction was set aside and the appellant was acquitted.

  Questions settled

  • Does a delayed supplementary statement naming an accused without explanation possess legal evidentiary value?
  • Is the absence of independent witnesses during an alleged recovery sufficient to cast doubt on the prosecution's case?
  • Does the refusal of a victim to undergo a medical examination in a rape or abduction case weaken the prosecution's evidence?
  • Is an accused entitled to the benefit of doubt as a matter of right if a single circumstance creates reasonable doubt?
  Read full judgment →
• Metropolitan Corporation, Islamabad vs M/s Mirza Muhammad Ismail &2025 IHC 358 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-05-30Read full judgment →
• Metro Flex Industries Pvt. Ltd. and others vs Government of Pakistan and others2025 IHC 528 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
• Mohammad Qasam Shad vs Muhammad Iqbal Malik and others2025 CLC 370 · Islamabad High Court · 2024-10-25Read full judgment →
• Mehr Rehman vs The Justice of Peace (West), Islamabad, etc2025 IHC 48 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-01-28Read full judgment →
• Meer Hassan Khan & Another vs Ministry Of Science & Technology Through Its Secretary, Govt Of Pakistan & Another2025 IHC 286 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-04-15Read full judgment →
• Matloob Hussain vs The State & 02 others2025 IHC 418 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-05-27
  registration of FIREx-Officio Justice of Peacecognizable offencepolice inactionland disputeconstitutional petitioncriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner challenged an order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-IV Islamabad-East/Ex-Officio Justice of Peace, whereby his application under Section 22-A & B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 seeking registration of a First Information Report (FIR) was dismissed. The core legal question was whether the Ex-Officio Justice of Peace erred in refusing to direct the registration of an FIR regarding a land dispute involving allegations of illegal dispossession, criminal intimidation, and police inaction. The Islamabad High Court held that no illegality or irregularity was found in the impugned order, as police reports and revenue records established that the proposed accused were in peaceful possession of the land and that no cognizable offence was made out. The petition was accordingly dismissed. The key principle laid down is that where an inquiry and police report reveal no cognizable offence and indicate that the dispute pertains to land possession with prior civil claims, an Ex-Officio Justice of Peace is justified in declining a direction to register an FIR.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an Ex-Officio Justice of Peace is bound to order the registration of an FIR when police reports indicate that no cognizable offence has been made out?
  • Can a petition under Section 22-A & B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 be maintained where the dispute essentially relates to land possession and civil claims?
  • Is the SHO duty-bound to register an FIR under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when allegations of a cognizable offence are contradicted by official inquiry reports?
  Read full judgment →
• Mastan Wali Khan vs Prime Minister of Pakistan/Chairman, Gilgit-Baltistan2025 IHC 538 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
• Mashab Ali vs Learned Judge Family Court (East), Islamabad etc2025 IHC 90, 2025 CLC 987 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-02-28Read full judgment →
• Manzoor Qadir vs Federation of Pakistan, etc2025 IHC 504 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-06-18Read full judgment →
• Manaf Ali & 26 Others vs Federal Employees Cooperative Housing Society2025 IHC 142 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-04-07Read full judgment →
• Malik Taus Ur Rehman vs Special Judge Central Islamabad & another2025 IHC 436 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-06-17Read full judgment →
• Malik Basit vs Mst. Razia Sultana, etc2025 IHC 208 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-03-24Read full judgment →
• Malik Abdul Rasheed vs Jafar Hussain Bhatti2025 IHC 514 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-07-02Read full judgment →
• Mairemunishahan vs Director General of Immigration & Passports, etc2025 IHC 218 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-04-09Read full judgment →
• Lt. Col. (R) Khalil-Ur-Rehman vs Judicial Magistrate (Section 30), Islamabad-West, Etc2025 IHC 578 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-08-13Read full judgment →
• Lal Shad vs The State2025 IHC 46 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-02-04
  post-arrest bailControl of Narcotic Substances Actconscious possessiondriver liabilityrule of consistencyprohibitory clause
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for post-arrest bail was filed in the Islamabad High Court by the petitioner, who was arrested in connection with FIR No. 493 registered under Section 9(1)3c of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. The prosecution alleged that 3,472 grams of charas were recovered from underneath the front passenger seat of a vehicle driven by the petitioner. The core legal questions pertained to whether the driver of a vehicle can be attributed conscious possession of narcotics recovered from the vehicle and whether the rule of consistency applies when bail was granted to a co-accused passenger. The court dismissed the bail petition, holding that as the driver of the vehicle, the petitioner had control, charge, and conscious knowledge of articles contained therein. The court further held that the rule of consistency did not apply because the petitioner's role as the driver differed from that of the passenger, and the offense fell within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.

  Questions settled

  • Does the driver of a vehicle exercise control and conscious possession over narcotics recovered from within that vehicle?
  • Can the rule of consistency be invoked for bail when the applicant is the driver of a vehicle and the co-accused granted bail was merely a passenger?
  • Is an applicant entitled to post-arrest bail under Section 497 Cr.P.C. when a commercial or substantial quantity of narcotics is recovered from a vehicle under their control?
  Read full judgment →
• Kousar Ghulam Haider vs Abdul Waseem, etc.2025 IHC 212 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-04-08Read full judgment →
• Khurram Masih vs The State2025 IHC 234 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-04-14
  narcotics possessionsafe custodychemical analysiscriminal appeallaboratory reportschain of custodybenefit of doubt
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenges a conviction under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, for the possession of 21,025 grams of Charas. The core legal question concerns whether the prosecution established the safe custody and transmission of the recovered contraband, given contradictions in laboratory reports and witness testimony regarding the identity of the official who deposited the samples. The court held that while the prosecution failed to prove the safe transmission of all twenty samples due to discrepancies naming an official not produced as a witness, it successfully established the possession of five kilograms of Charas supported by a consistent laboratory report. Consequently, the court partially allowed the appeal, reducing the sentence to seven years and six months of rigorous imprisonment. The judgment affirms the principle that in narcotics cases, the prosecution must strictly prove the safe custody and transmission of samples; discrepancies in laboratory reports regarding the identity of the person depositing samples create reasonable doubt, requiring the exclusion of those specific samples from the conviction calculation.

  Questions settled

  • Does a discrepancy in the name of the official depositing samples in laboratory reports vitiate the entire prosecution case in narcotics trials?
  • Can a conviction for narcotics possession be sustained for a lesser quantity than originally charged if the prosecution fails to prove the safe transmission of all recovered samples?
  • Does the failure to exhibit the vehicle used for transporting narcotics during the trial automatically entitle the accused to an acquittal?
  • Is the investigation of a narcotics case by the complainant himself a ground for automatic acquittal?
  Read full judgment →
• Khalid vs The State, etc2025 IHC 80 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-02-17
  pre-arrest bailbail cancellationcriminal procedureprohibitory clauseliberty of the accusedinvestigationFIR nomination
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal miscellaneous petition sought the cancellation of pre-arrest bail granted to respondents by the Additional Sessions Judge in a case registered under Sections 324, 109, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the trial court’s order granting bail was legally unsustainable, warranting interference by the High Court. The High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the impugned order was consistent with law and facts. The court affirmed that once bail is granted by a competent court, it cannot be cancelled without establishing strong and exceptional grounds, such as the misuse of liberty, tampering with evidence, or the likelihood of absconsion. The court emphasized that mere nomination in an FIR is insufficient to deny bail, particularly when the investigation is complete and no fresh incriminating material exists. Reaffirming that bail is the rule and refusal is the exception, the court held that interference with a bail order is only justified if the order is patently illegal, erroneous, or results in a miscarriage of justice.

  Questions settled

  • What are the established grounds for the cancellation of bail once it has been granted by a competent court?
  • Does mere nomination in an FIR constitute sufficient grounds to deny or cancel pre-arrest bail?
  • Is interference by a superior court in a bail-granting order justified if the order is not patently illegal or erroneous?
  • Does the completion of investigation and submission of a challan influence the court's decision regarding the cancellation of bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Khalid Mehmood vs National Accountability Bureau Through Its Chairman2025 IHC 126 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-03-11Read full judgment →
• Karwan-E-Alfalak (Private) Limited vs Federation Of Pakistan & 2 Others2025 IHC 354 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-05-02Read full judgment →
• Kainat Masood vs The State, etc2025 IHC 162 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-03-04
  post-arrest baildishonest issuance of chequeprohibitory clausehabitual offendercriminal procedurebail as rule
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by the accused, Kainat Masood, in a case registered under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, involving the alleged dishonest issuance of a cheque. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the nature of the offence and her alleged status as a habitual offender. The Islamabad High Court held that the petitioner was entitled to bail. The Court reasoned that the offence under Section 489-F does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, making the grant of bail the general rule and refusal the exception. Furthermore, the Court established that the mere registration of other FIRs against an accused is insufficient to establish them as a habitual offender in the absence of a conviction. Finally, the Court emphasized that bail should not be withheld as a punitive measure, especially when the investigation is complete and the accused is no longer required for further investigative purposes.

  Questions settled

  • Does the mere registration of multiple FIRs against an accused constitute sufficient proof to label them a habitual offender for the purpose of denying bail?
  • Is the grant of bail the general rule for offences that do not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can bail be withheld as a punitive measure when the investigation is complete and the accused is no longer required for investigative purposes?
  Read full judgment →
• Jubilee Life Insurance Company Limited vs Office of the President (Public)2025 IHC 388 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
• Jawad Amin Khan, Shahid Hussain vs Federation of Pakistan, through its2025 IHC 382 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-06-12
  caretaker governmentstatutory tenurepremature removaldue processnatural justicewrit jurisdictionpublic appointmentde-notification
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns two writ petitions challenging the de-notification of the President and Vice President of the Pakistan Nursing and Midwifery Council (PN&MC) by the caretaker government. The core legal questions were whether the caretaker government possessed the authority to prematurely terminate the petitioners' fixed-term statutory appointments and whether such removal, executed without a show-cause notice or opportunity for a hearing, violated principles of natural justice and the Constitution. The Court held that the caretaker government's mandate is limited to day-to-day affairs and that it cannot make major policy decisions or terminate fixed-term statutory appointments without compelling, documented reasons. The Court emphasized that a statutory tenure post cannot be curtailed arbitrarily. Finding that the respondents failed to provide any documentation justifying the removal or evidence of a fair process, the Court declared the impugned notifications illegal, void, and of no legal effect. The key principles laid down are that tenure appointments protected by statute cannot be prematurely curtailed without due process, specifically the right to a hearing, and that caretaker governments are constitutionally prohibited from making major appointments or removals that impact the state's long-term administration.

  Questions settled

  • Does a caretaker government have the legal authority to prematurely terminate a fixed-term statutory appointment?
  • Is a show-cause notice and an opportunity for a hearing mandatory before removing an incumbent from a statutory tenure post?
  • Can a caretaker government make major policy decisions or appointments that fall outside the scope of day-to-day state affairs?
  • Does the failure to provide documentation justifying the removal of a statutory appointee allow the court to assume no such justification exists?
  Read full judgment →
• Jawad Ahmad Malik vs Institute of Leagal Management science (Ilms), Etc2025 IHC 252 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
• Jahanzeb Shafiq Abbasi and others vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Ministry of HRD and others2025 PLC (C.S.) 652 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-09-30
  autonomous bodyEOBIpolicy directivesvested rightsservice regulationsadministrative lawconstitutional jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners, employees of the Employees' Old-Age Benefits Institution (EOBI), challenged an order issued by the Ministry of Overseas Pakistanis and Human Resource Development (OP & HRD) that unilaterally discontinued various allowances previously granted to them under the EOBI (Employees Service) Regulations, 1980. The core legal question was whether the Ministry of OP & HRD possessed the statutory authority to issue binding directives to an autonomous body like the EOBI to withdraw established employee benefits, and whether such an order constituted a valid exercise of the Federal Government's policy-making power. The Court held that the EOBI is an independent, autonomous body corporate, and the Ministry of OP & HRD cannot be conflated with the 'Federal Government' as defined in constitutional law. Furthermore, the Court ruled that even the Federal Government’s power to provide policy guidance under the Employees' Old-Age Benefits Act, 1976, does not extend to overriding the institution's internal regulations or interfering with the vested rights of its employees. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned order, affirming that autonomous bodies are not bound by administrative directives that contravene their own statutory regulations.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Federal Government have the authority to issue binding policy directives that override the internal regulations of an autonomous body like the EOBI?
  • Can a Ministry unilaterally withdraw allowances granted to employees of an autonomous body without following the institution's established regulatory framework?
  • Is a directive issued by a Ministry equivalent to a decision by the 'Federal Government' for the purposes of statutory compliance?
  • Does the power of general supervision under the Employees' Old-Age Benefits Act 1976 permit the Federal Government to interfere with the terms and conditions of service of EOBI employees?
  Read full judgment →
• Jahanzeb Hasrat vs Abdul Waheed and others2025 IHC 156 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-02-20
  bail cancellationpre-arrest bailgas theftprohibitory clausejudicial discretionlibertycriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves twelve consolidated bail cancellation petitions filed by the complainant, challenging the pre-arrest bail granted to the respondents by the Additional Sessions Judge-I, Islamabad, in a case registered under Sections 462-C and 462-D of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, concerning alleged illegal gas tampering. The core legal question was whether the trial court's grant of pre-arrest bail was erroneous, warranting interference by the High Court. The High Court dismissed the petitions, holding that the petitioner failed to demonstrate any of the established grounds for bail cancellation, such as misuse of bail, tampering with evidence, or absconsion. The Court emphasized that once bail is granted by a competent court, it cannot be interfered with absent strong and exceptional circumstances, as doing so would curtail the accused's constitutional right to liberty. Furthermore, the Court noted that the alleged offences did not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, where the rule is the grant of bail and the exception is its refusal.

  Questions settled

  • What are the established grounds for the cancellation of bail once it has been granted?
  • Does the grant of bail in offences falling outside the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 follow the rule of grant or refusal?
  • Is it appropriate for a superior court to interfere with a bail order in the absence of evidence that the accused has misused the concession of bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Jahangir Sultan vs Civil Judge 1st Class, Islamabad-East, etc2025 IHC 490 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-06-27Read full judgment →
• Jahangir Khan vs The State, etc2025 IHC 56 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-03-03
  narcotics controlsafe custody of sampleschemical examiner reportpolice witnessesdriver liabilitysecret cavity recoveryburden of proof
  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 transporting a huge quantity of opium and charas concealed in a secret cavity of a motorcar, resulting in a sentence of imprisonment for life. The core legal questions involve whether the prosecution successfully established safe custody and transmission of the narcotics samples to the chemical examiner, whether the lack of independent public witnesses under Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 vitiates the trial given Section 25 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, and whether knowledge and possession of contraband can be attributed to the driver of a vehicle. The Islamabad High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the chain of custody was unbroken, official witnesses are competent and credible without needing independent corroboration in narcotics cases, and a driver is presumed to possess and have knowledge of items concealed within their vehicle unless proven otherwise. The court reaffirmed that technical omissions do not override overwhelming and consistent prosecution evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the non-inclusion of private or independent witnesses under Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 vitiates a conviction under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997?
  • Can the testimonies of police officials be relied upon without independent corroboration to sustain a narcotics conviction?
  • Whether the driver of a vehicle can be legally presumed to have knowledge and possession of contraband discovered within a secret cavity of the vehicle?
  • What constitutes a complete and unbroken chain of safe custody and transmission for narcotic samples sent to a government analyst?
  Read full judgment →
• Independent Newspaper Corporation (Pvt) Limited vs Abdul Jabbar Faisal2025 IHC 456 · Islamabad High Court
  wage board awardnewspaper employeescontractual employmentITNE jurisdictionconstitutional petitionemployment regularizationNewspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) Act 1973
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves multiple writ petitions filed by a newspaper corporation challenging a consolidated judgment by the Implementation Tribunal for Newspaper Employees (ITNE). The ITNE had directed the petitioner to implement the 8th Wage Board Award for its employees, while dismissing claims under the 7th Wage Board Award as time-barred. The petitioner contended that the ITNE lacked jurisdiction, failed to follow procedural requirements of the Code of Civil Procedure, and that the matter required a full trial to determine employment status. The Islamabad High Court dismissed the petitions, holding that the ITNE possesses the statutory authority to enforce wage awards for employees functionally connected to a newspaper establishment, irrespective of their technical contractual status. The Court ruled that the existence of an employment relationship was established, rendering a full trial unnecessary. Furthermore, the Court clarified that proceedings before the National Industrial Relations Commission regarding regularization do not oust the ITNE's jurisdiction to enforce wage awards. The judgment reaffirms the objective of the Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) Act, 1973, in protecting workers from being deprived of lawful rights through artificial employment arrangements.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Implementation Tribunal for Newspaper Employees have the authority to enforce wage awards for employees who are technically hired on a contractual basis?
  • Is a full trial under the Code of Civil Procedure required for the Implementation Tribunal for Newspaper Employees to determine the employment status of workers?
  • Does the pendency of proceedings before the National Industrial Relations Commission regarding regularization oust the jurisdiction of the Implementation Tribunal for Newspaper Employees to enforce wage awards?
  Read full judgment →
• Inaam Rauf Abbasi vs The State & another2025 IHC 506 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-07-07
  criminal appealbenefit of doubtCCTV footagedigital evidenceQatl-e-Amdcircumstantial evidenceacquittalchain of custody
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellant for the offence of Qatl-e-Amd under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, resulting in life imprisonment. The core legal question concerns the admissibility and reliability of CCTV footage as the sole evidence for conviction when the prosecution fails to establish its source, chain of custody, or authenticity. The Islamabad High Court, upon reviewing the evidence, found that the CCTV footage was neither authenticated nor clearly depicted the commission of the crime, and the prosecution failed to examine other witnesses present at the scene or establish a motive. Consequently, the Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the charge beyond reasonable doubt. The judgment reiterates the principle that the benefit of doubt is a right, not a concession, and that a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt in a prudent mind entitles an accused to acquittal. The Court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant, emphasizing that digital evidence requires strict verification of source and forensic integrity.

  Questions settled

  • What is the two-step test for the verification of digital evidence such as CCTV footage?
  • Does the failure to establish the source of CCTV footage render it unreliable as evidence?
  • Is an accused entitled to acquittal if a single circumstance creates reasonable doubt in a prudent mind?
  • Can a conviction be sustained solely on CCTV footage if the footage fails to clearly depict the commission of the offence?
  Read full judgment →
• Imrat Rafique vs Addl. District Judge, West Islamabad, etc2025 IHC 512 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-06-30Read full judgment →
• Imrat Rafique vs Additional District Judge West Islamabad and another2025 IHC 44 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-02-04Read full judgment →
• Imran Arif Janjua vs Federation Of Pakistan Through Secretary, Ministry Of Interior, Islamabad, etc2025 IHC 544 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-06-26Read full judgment →
• Imran Ahmad Khan Niazi vs The State and another2024 IHC 232, 2025 PCRLJ 498 · Islamabad High Court · 2024-11-20
  post-arrest bailToshakhana referencecriminal breach of trustprinciple of consistencyfurther inquiryofficial giftsCabinet Division Office Memorandum
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, former Prime Minister Imran Ahmad Khan Niazi, sought post-arrest bail in a case registered by the Federal Investigation Agency under Sections 109 and 409 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 and Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, relating to the retention and alleged undervaluation of a Bvlgari jewellery set gifted during an official visit. The core legal questions concerned whether the non-deposit of a gift under the Cabinet Division's Office Memorandum of 2018 entailed criminal liability, whether previous convictions and pending trials barred bail, and whether the principle of consistency applied given that co-accused wife had already been granted bail. The court held that the 2018 Office Memorandum did not penalise non-deposit in the same manner as non-reporting, rendering the case one of further inquiry, and that the petitioner was entitled to bail on the principle of consistency and completion of investigation. The key principles laid down include that criminal liability for non-deposit of gifts cannot be retrospectively imported from later policy memoranda, and that co-accused similarly placed are entitled to consistent treatment regarding bail.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the non-deposit of a state gift under the Cabinet Division's Office Memorandum dated 18.12.2018 attracts criminal liability under Section 409 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860?
  • Does the suspension of a sentence resulting from a previous conviction wipe out the conviction for the purpose of denying post-arrest bail in a subsequent case?
  • Is an accused entitled to post-arrest bail on the principle of consistency when a co-accused facing identical allegations has already been granted bail?
  • Does the retrospective application of subsequent policy memoranda issued by the Cabinet Division hold legal validity in criminal proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• Ikhlas Hussain vs The State2025 IHC 366 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-05-06
  narcotics controlcriminal appealinvestigating officerbenefit of doubtrecovery of narcoticsprocedural infirmityacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, for the alleged possession of 1301 grams of heroin. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully established the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt, particularly given that the complainant police officer also acted as the Investigating Officer. The Islamabad High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case, noting significant contradictions in the evidence and procedural infirmities. The Court emphasized that the practice of a complainant police officer acting as the Investigating Officer is improper and prejudicial to the accused, as it compromises the neutrality required for a fair investigation. Citing the principle that the benefit of doubt is a right rather than a concession, the Court found that the prosecution's evidence was insufficient and riddled with lacunas. Consequently, the conviction was set aside, and the appellant was acquitted of the charge. The judgment reinforces the necessity of impartial investigation and the strict application of the benefit of doubt in criminal proceedings.

  Questions settled

  • Does the practice of a complainant police officer acting as the Investigating Officer in a narcotics case vitiate the trial?
  • Is an accused entitled to the benefit of doubt as a matter of right when the prosecution fails to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt?
  • Can a conviction be sustained when there are material contradictions in the statements of prosecution witnesses regarding the recovery of contraband?
  Read full judgment →
• Ijaz Ali vs Muhammad Shafi Khan And Others2025 IHC 346 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-05-05Read full judgment →
• Iftikhar Ali vs The State And Another2025 IHC 476 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-06-24
  cheque dishonouracquittal appealburden of proofsecondary evidencebest evidence rulecriminal appealSection 489-F PPC
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged an acquittal judgment passed by a Judicial Magistrate in a case involving the dishonour of a cheque under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had sufficiently proven the ingredients of the offence, specifically regarding the production of primary evidence and the burden of proof. The High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the acquittal was well-founded. The ratio of the decision is that the prosecution failed to discharge its burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt, as it relied on photocopies of the cheque rather than the original, failed to produce material witnesses named in the FIR, and provided no documentary evidence of the underlying financial obligation. The Court reaffirmed the principle that in criminal trials, the burden of proof rests squarely on the prosecution, and the benefit of any doubt must accrue to the accused. Furthermore, appellate courts should exercise restraint and only interfere with an acquittal if the findings are perverse, arbitrary, or reflect a manifest miscarriage of justice.

  Questions settled

  • Is the production of the original cheque and dishonour slip a mandatory evidentiary requirement in cases under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • What is the legal consequence of the prosecution's failure to produce material witnesses named in the FIR?
  • Under what circumstances is an appellate court justified in interfering with a trial court's judgment of acquittal?
  • Can photocopies of a cheque be admitted as primary evidence in a criminal trial without satisfying the requirements for secondary evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Ibrar Hussain vs Federation of Pakistan, etc2025 IHC 298 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-04-28Read full judgment →
• I.B. Employees Cooperative Housing Society through authorized2025 CLC 408 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-09-08Read full judgment →
• Hotel Margala (Private) Limited vs Chief Commissioner Inland Revenue, Lto, Islamabad, Etc2025 IHC 132 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
• Hazrat Usman and another vs The State2025 PCRLJ 130 · Islamabad High Court · 2024-01-03
  criminal revisionfair trialproduction of documentshandwriting expertprosecution evidencedefence evidenceSection 94 CrPCSection 265-F CrPC
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition challenges two orders passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Islamabad, which dismissed the petitioners' applications during the prosecution's evidence stage. The petitioners sought to summon a police daily diary and register, and to have signatures of an investigation officer examined by a handwriting expert. The core legal question was whether an accused can demand the production of documents or expert examination during the prosecution's evidence stage, or if such requests must await the defence stage. The Court held that while Section 94 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 allows for the production of documents at any stage, the trial court must ensure the trial proceeds in the orderly sequence prescribed by Section 265-F of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court ruled that the petitioners' applications were premature, directing them to file such requests at the appropriate stage under Section 265-F(7) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The key principle established is that trial courts must balance the accused's right to a fair trial with the necessity of conducting proceedings without unnecessary interruption or obstruction.

  Questions settled

  • Can an accused demand the production of documents or expert examination during the prosecution's evidence stage?
  • Is there a limitation as to the stage of trial when a court can exercise its power under Section 94 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • At what stage of a criminal trial should an accused apply to summon witnesses or documents for their defence?
  Read full judgment →
• Hazrat Umar vs The State And Another2025 IHC 174, 2025 PCRLJ 818 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-02-18
  post-arrest bailbail cancellationprohibitory clausecriminal revisionforgeryinvestigation manipulationjudicial discretion
  Summary & questions settled

  This revision petition challenged an order by the Additional Sessions Judge, Islamabad, which cancelled the petitioner's post-arrest bail in a criminal case involving forgery and theft charges. The core legal question was whether the subsequent addition of an offence falling within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, after the grant of bail, constitutes valid grounds for bail cancellation. The High Court held that the cancellation order was unsustainable. The Court reasoned that the prosecution failed to disclose the added section during the initial bail hearing, indicating malafide intent. Furthermore, the Court established that the mere addition of a new section to an FIR after bail has been granted does not automatically invalidate the bail order. The Court affirmed that bail cancellation requires proof of exceptional circumstances, such as misuse of the concession of bail, interference with the investigation, or obstruction of justice. Consequently, the Court set aside the cancellation order, emphasizing that judicial discretion exercised in granting bail cannot be undermined by subsequent manipulation of the FIR by the investigating officer.

  Questions settled

  • Does the mere addition of an offence falling within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, after the grant of bail, constitute sufficient grounds for bail cancellation?
  • Can the prosecution or complainant seek cancellation of bail based on facts that were suppressed during the initial bail hearing?
  • Does the Investigating Officer have the authority to undermine a judicial bail order by adding or deleting sections of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 after the bail has been granted?
  • What are the essential grounds required for the cancellation of bail once it has been granted by a court?
  Read full judgment →
• Hamza Ali vs The State2025 IHC 226 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-04-16
  post-arrest bailnarcoticsrecovery evidenceindependent witnessesvideo recordingcriminal justicetentative assessment
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by the petitioner, Hamza Ali, who was charged under Section 9 (1) 6-C of the Control of Narcotics Substance Act, 1997, following the alleged recovery of 570 grams of heroin. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail despite the recovery allegations. The Islamabad High Court held that the petitioner was entitled to the concession of post-arrest bail. The court reasoned that the prosecution's case was rendered doubtful due to the failure to associate private witnesses from the locality and the absence of video recordings or photographs of the recovery process. Relying on Article 164 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, the court emphasized that law enforcement agencies must utilize modern devices to ensure evidence reliability and protect against potential police atrocities. The court affirmed the principle that while narcotics control is essential, the rights of the accused must be safeguarded, and the incarceration of an innocent person constitutes an irreparable harm, unlike the granting of interim bail, which remains a reparable judicial act.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure to associate private witnesses in a narcotics recovery case make the prosecution's case doubtful for the purpose of bail?
  • Is the use of video recording during recovery proceedings a significant factor for the reliability of evidence under Article 164 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984?
  • Does the potential for irreparable harm to an innocent person through unjustified incarceration outweigh the state's interest in detention during the pre-trial stage?
  Read full judgment →
• Hamid Mir and others vs Federation of Pakistan and others2025 IHC 576 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-08-26Read full judgment →
• Haji Shams ur Rehman vs Director, FIA and others2025 IHC 300 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-04-29Read full judgment →
• Gulistan Spinning Mills Limited vs Federation of Pakistan through Ministry of Law and Justice, Islamabad etc2025 IHC 398 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
• Ghulam Hussain vs The Learned Additional District Judge (East), Islamabad, etc2025 IHC 200 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-03-11Read full judgment →
• Federal Government Employees Housing Authority through its Director2025 IHC 270 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
• FBR through its Chairman and others vs President of Pakistan, and others2025 IHC 12, 2025 PLJ Islamabad 102 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-01-22Read full judgment →
• Fauji Fertilizer Company Limited vs Federation of Pakistan, etc2025 IHC 22, PTCL 2025 CL. 385 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-01-28Read full judgment →
• Farrah Mehmood & 2 Others vs Adnan Amin & 2 others2025 IHC 548 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-07-14Read full judgment →
• Farooq Zaman and another vs Additional Sessions Judge-III (East)2025 IHC 458 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
• Fahim Khan Afridi vs Federation of Pakistan, etc2025 IHC 72 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-03-05Read full judgment →
• Engro Polymer & Chemicals Limited, etc. vs Pakistan, through the Secretary, Ministry of Energy (Petroleum division), Block-a, Pak Secretariat, Islamabad, etc2025 IHC 540 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
• Engro Polymer & Chemicals Limited, etc vs Pakistan, through the Secretary, Ministry of Energy (Petroleum division), Block-a, Pak Secretariat, Islamabad, etc2025 IHC 540 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
• Engro Fertilizers Limited and others vs Competition Commission of Pakistan and 3 others2025 IHC 536 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
• Engro Corporation Limited and others vs SECP etc2025 IHC 336 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-05-19Read full judgment →
• Dr. Tashfeen Khan vs NAB through its Chairman and another2025 IHC 378 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-06-04Read full judgment →
• Dr. Nasir Mehmood Cheema and another vs Federation of Pakistan2025 IHC 2, 2025 PLJ Islamabad 183 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-01-15Read full judgment →
• Dildar Khan, etc vs Shoaib Javed Hussain, Chairman, State Life Insurance2025 IHC 404 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-05-21
  contempt of courtservice benefitsbasic pay increaseCollective Bargaining Agreementwrit petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a contempt petition filed against the respondent for alleged non-compliance with a judgment dated 30.03.2023 passed by the Islamabad High Court in a writ petition concerning employee service benefits, specifically regarding a 20% increase in basic pay and promotion increments. The core legal question was whether the respondent willfully defied the court's judgment directing them to decide the petitioners' pending representations regarding the withheld 20% increase in basic pay. The court held that the respondent had substantially complied with the judgment by affording the petitioners an opportunity of hearing, evaluating their claims, and passing a reasoned order rejecting the representations upon finding that the petitioners had already availed overlapping benefits under a Collective Bargaining Agreement. Consequently, the court laid down that contempt proceedings are unwarranted where the judgment in question has been duly complied with in letter and spirit, and no willful defiance is established.

  Questions settled

  • Whether contempt proceedings can be initiated against a respondent who has complied with the court's directions by deciding the petitioners' representation?
  • Does granting overlapping benefits under a Collective Bargaining Agreement preclude employees from claiming additional pay increases for the same period?
  • Whether the respondent's compliance with a direction to decide a representation absolves them of willful defiance?
  Read full judgment →
• Dawn Convertec SMC-Private Limited and others vs National Tariff2025 IHC 8 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
• Daily Khabrian vs Nasir Iqbal and another2025 IHC 188 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-02-28
  wage board awardnewspaper employeesimplementation tribunallimitation periodwage recoverywrit jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns multiple writ petitions challenging orders passed by the Implementation Tribunal under the Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) Act, 1973, which granted salary arrears to newspaper employees based on the 7th Wage Board Award. The core legal questions were whether the Tribunal possessed the jurisdiction to adjudicate these claims, whether former or contract employees maintained standing to file such claims, and whether the applications were barred by limitation. The Court held that the Tribunal has the authority to enforce Wage Board Awards and that the definition of 'newspaper employee' is broad enough to encompass former, contract, and part-time workers. However, the Court affirmed that claims for wage recovery are subject to a three-year limitation period under the Limitation Act, 1908. Consequently, the Court upheld the Tribunal's orders for claims filed within the limitation period but set aside orders for claims filed beyond the three-year threshold. The principle established is that while the Tribunal has jurisdiction over wage recovery for all categories of newspaper employees, such claims must be brought within the three-year limitation period prescribed by law.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Implementation Tribunal constituted under the Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) Act, 1973 have the jurisdiction to adjudicate wage recovery claims?
  • Are former, contract, or part-time newspaper employees entitled to seek wage recovery through the Implementation Tribunal?
  • What is the applicable limitation period for filing applications before the Implementation Tribunal for the enforcement of a Wage Board Award?
  Read full judgment →