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. 232594 judgments in total.

• MAHMOODUL HASAN Versus ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF PAKISTAN1973 PLD 411 · Lahore High Court · 1972-06-29Read full judgment →
• WEST PAKISTAN PROVINCE Versus NAZIR AHMED1973 PLD 403 · Lahore High Court · 1972-11-21Read full judgment →
• COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX Versus LAHORE CENTRAL IRON & HARDWARE MACHINERY MERCHANTS1973 PLD 396 · Lahore High Court · 1972-07-24Read full judgment →
• LAHORE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION Versus ABDUL RAHIM1973 PLD 391 · Lahore High Court · 1972-11-17Read full judgment →
• COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX Versus CRESCENT TEXTILE MILLS LTD1973 PLD 387 · Lahore High Court · 1971-09-29Read full judgment →
• YAQUB KHAN Versus PUNJAB ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION1973 PLD 385 · Lahore High Court · 1972-10-19Read full judgment →
• COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX Versus MIAN MUHAMMAD ALLAH BUX1973 PLD 381 · Lahore High Court · 1972-06-14Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN Versus STATE1973 PLD 377 · Lahore High Court · 1971-06-18Read full judgment →
• GHULAM HAIDER Versus RAJ BHARI1973 PLD 372 · Lahore High Court · 1972-11-22Read full judgment →
• COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX Versus OWEN ROBERTS & CO. LTD1973 PLD 367 · Lahore High Court · 1971-11-01Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SHARTF Versus STATE1973 PLD 365 · Lahore High Court · 1972-07-28Read full judgment →
• HARIPUR ROSIN & TURPENTINE FACTORY LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX1973 PLD 361 · Lahore High Court · 1972-01-12Read full judgment →
• ALLAH DITTA Versus NASIR AHMAD1973 PLD 359 · Lahore High Court · 1697-09-29Read full judgment →
• COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX Versus JAMAL ICE FACTORY1973 PLD 356 · Lahore High Court · 1972-06-23Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN Versus AHSAN-VD-DIN1973 PLD 345 · Lahore High Court · 1971-12-08Read full judgment →
• ABDUL HAMEED Versus MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE1973 PLD 339 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• AMANAT ALI Versus PANAH AT1973 PLD 332 · Lahore High Court · 1971-12-01Read full judgment →
• SAIRA Versus SETTLEMENT AUTHORITIES1973 PLD 327 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• ABDUL KARIM Versus CHIEF SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER1973 PLD 325 · Lahore High Court · 1972-01-21Read full judgment →
• SULTAN Versus DOST MUHAMMAD1973 PLD 318 · Lahore High Court · 1972-01-07Read full judgment →
• ABDUL KHALIQ Versus SULTAN BUTT1973 PLD 313 · Lahore High Court · 1971-12-23Read full judgment →
• ALAM DIN Versus STATE1973 PLD 304 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• ABDUR RASHID Versus SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER1973 PLD 297 · Lahore High Court · 1971-12-23Read full judgment →
• ABDOR RAUF Versus SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER1973 PLD 286 · Lahore High Court · 1972-01-24Read full judgment →
• SHAMIR Versus CHIEF LAND COMMISSIONER1973 PLD 264 · Lahore High Court · 1971-05-03Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD LATIF KHAN Versus MISS R. AMIN1973 PLD 262 · Lahore High Court · 1972-01-25Read full judgment →
• NAZIR AHMAD Versus GOVERNMENT OF WEST PAKISTAN1973 PLD 259 · Lahore High Court · 1972-04-25Read full judgment →
• SHAMIM MUSTAFA ANSARI Versus GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB1973 PLD 140 · Lahore High Court · 1971-12-01Read full judgment →
• MEHR KAMIR Versus WALI MUHAMMAD1973 PLD 137 · Lahore High Court · 1971-10-12Read full judgment →
• JAM KHURSHID KHAN Versus PROVINCE OF WEST PAKISTAN1973 PLD 131 · Lahore High Court · 1972-02-08Read full judgment →
• BARKAT ALI Versus SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER (LAND)1973 PLD 128 · Lahore High Court · 1971-11-17Read full judgment →
• ABDUL AZIZ Versus DAULAT BIBI1973 PLD 125 · Lahore High Court · 1972-03-17Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ASLAM KHAN Versus GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB1973 PLD 120 · Lahore High Court · 1971-11-16Read full judgment →
• MAHMOOD SHARIF Versus CLAIMS COMMISSIONER, LAHORE1973 PLD 114 · Lahore High Court · 1971-12-23Read full judgment →
• SAEED AHMAD Versus PROVINCE OF WEST PAKISTAN1973 PLD 103 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• STATE Versus MUJIBUR REHMAN SHAMI1973 PLD 1 · Lahore High Court · 1972-12-21Read full judgment →
• MST. ASAFA SULTANA Versus THE STATE1972 PLD 478 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• 1971 PLD 7341971 PLD 734 · Lahore High Court · 1971-03-05Read full judgment →
• MESSRS ODEON CINEMA, LAHORE Versus THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, LAHORE1971 PLD 632 · Lahore High Court · 1970-11-16Read full judgment →
• 1971 PLD 5521971 PLD 552 · Lahore High Court · 1970-06-17Read full judgment →
• RUSTAM Versus THS STATE1971 PLD 410 · Lahore High Court · 1969-12-04Read full judgment →
• ABDUL JAMIL Versus REGISTRAR OF TRADE UNIONS, WEST PAKISTAN, LAHORE1971 PLD 220 · Lahore High Court · 1970-06-30Read full judgment →
• MIAN FAZAL AHMAD Versus THE STATE1970 PLD 741 · Lahore High Court · 1970-02-09Read full judgment →
• UMAR AKBAR ALI GHUMMAN Versus Mst. MARIA JAVED CHEEMA2025 PLD 388 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-05-19Read full judgment →
• FARHAN KHAN Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Ministry of Law and Justice Division, Islamabad2025 PLD 382 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-04-23Read full judgment →
• SHAHZAD AHMED Versus State2025 PLD 357 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-03-03
  rapesolitary testimonyDNA evidencedelay in FIRconsentabsence of physical violencecriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellant challenged his conviction under section 376 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 for rape, resulting in a sentence of fourteen years rigorous imprisonment and a fine. The core legal questions involved the evidentiary value of a solitary statement of a rape victim, the necessity of corroboration, the impact of delay in registering the first information report, the presence of marks of physical violence, and the legal determination of consent. The Islamabad High Court held that the uncorroborated testimony of a rape victim, if inspiring confidence and reliable, is sufficient to sustain a conviction, and that DNA profiling serves as gold-standard corroborative evidence linking the accused to the offense. The Court further ruled that delay in reporting sexual assault in an honor-based society is natural and does not vitiate the prosecution's case, physical force or marks of injury are not mandatory prerequisites to prove rape, and submission induced by fear does not constitute legal consent. The appeal was dismissed and the conviction and sentence were upheld.

  Questions settled

  • ,Whether a conviction for rape can be sustained solely on the uncorroborated testimony of the victim?
  • Does a delay in the registration of an FIR in sexual assault cases inherently render the prosecution's case doubtful?
  • Are visible marks of physical violence mandatory to prove the commission of rape?
  • Does passive submission out of fear amount to legal consent in a charge of rape?
  Read full judgment →
• Brig. (R) IMTIAZ AHMED Versus DEPUTY COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE, BENAMI ZONE-I, ISLAMABAD2025 PLD 347 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-03-17Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD MALIK Versus O.G.D.C.L., through Managing Director, Islamabad2025 PLD 343 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-04-16Read full judgment →
• ABDUL QADEER Versus State2025 PLD 326 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-02-17
  juvenile offenderAnti-Rape ActJuvenile Justice System ActjurisdictiondiversionGender Based Violence Courtrestorative justice
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges a conviction under sections 376(iii) and 377-B of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, passed by a Gender Based Violence Court established under the Anti-Rape (Investigation and Trial) Act, 2021. The core legal question was whether a juvenile offender could be legally tried by a Special Court under the Anti-Rape Act rather than a Juvenile Court under the Juvenile Justice System Act, 2018. The Islamabad High Court held that a Special Court established exclusively under the Anti-Rape Act lacks jurisdiction to try a juvenile offender unless specifically designated as a Juvenile Court under the Juvenile Act. The Court ruled that trying a juvenile within the adult criminal system violates the legislative intent and protections of the Juvenile Justice System Act. Consequently, the appellate court quashed the trial proceedings and impugned judgment as coram non judice, partially allowed the appeal, and remanded the matter to be entrusted to a competent juvenile court for reference to the Juvenile Justice Committee for disposal through diversion.

  Questions settled

  • Does a Special Court established under the Anti-Rape Act have jurisdiction to try a juvenile offender without being specifically designated as a Juvenile Court?
  • What is the effect of trying a juvenile offender within the adult criminal trial framework rather than under the Juvenile Justice System Act, 2018?
  • Can a criminal case against a juvenile involving a scheduled offense under the Anti-Rape Act be disposed of through diversion mechanisms under the Juvenile Justice System Act, 2018?
  • What is the legal consequence when trial proceedings against a juvenile are conducted by a court lacking proper jurisdiction under the juvenile laws?
  Read full judgment →
• IZA NOWAK through Authorised Representative ANZ Versus FEDERAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY (FIA) through Director General (DG), FIA, Islamabad2025 PLD 315 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-12-28Read full judgment →
• BASIT SHUJA Versus RAUF KLASRA2025 PLD 306 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-04-29Read full judgment →
• NATIONAL COMMISSION FOR HUMAN RIGHTS OF PAKISTAN Versus UNITED BANK LIMITED2025 PLD 303 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-02-11
  National Commission for Human Rightspension disputestatutory jurisdictionservice rightsintra court appealfundamental rights
  Summary & questions settled

  This Intra Court Appeal challenges the judgment of a learned Single Judge in Chambers who allowed a writ petition filed by United Bank Limited (UBL) and set aside an order issued by the National Commission for Human Rights (NCHR). The core legal question was whether the NCHR possesses the statutory jurisdiction to adjudicate pension-related employment disputes of a private sector bank employee. The court held that the NCHR's mandate is restricted to investigating human rights violations, abetment thereof, or negligence by public servants, and it lacks the authority to intervene in contractual pension disputes or encroach upon the domain of specialized forums. The appeal was dismissed in limine, establishing the principle that employment and pension disputes of private sector employees do not fall within the statutory purview of the NCHR.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the National Commission for Human Rights has the jurisdiction to adjudicate pension-related disputes of private sector bank employees?
  • Does the statutory mandate of the National Commission for Human Rights extend to contractual employment disputes?
  • Can the National Commission for Human Rights intervene in matters falling within the domain of specialized legal forums and tribunals?
  Read full judgment →
• Prof. Dr. QAMAR-UL-WAHAB Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN2025 PLD 293 · Islamabad High Court · 2024-12-02Read full judgment →
• IMRAN AHMAD KHAN NIAZI Versus State2024 PLD 41 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-10-26Read full judgment →
• SHAHAB SAQIB Versus SADAF RASHEED2023 PLD 34 · Islamabad High Court · 2021-05-03Read full judgment →
• NOMAN AHMED Versus CAPITAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY2022 PLD 75 · Islamabad High Court · 2021-06-14Read full judgment →
• FEDERAL GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES HOUSING FOUNDATION Versus EDNAN SYED2022 PLD 273 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-02-03Read full judgment →
• TEHREEM AAMIR Versus ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE-III, (WEST), ISLAMABAD2021 PLD 422 · Islamabad High Court · 2021-04-29Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD MASOOD CHISHTI Versus CHAIRMAN, NATIONAL ACCOUNTABILITY BUREAU, ISLAMABAD2021 PLD 350 · Islamabad High Court · 2021-01-12Read full judgment →
• ABDUL WAHEED AWAN Versus State2020 PLD 98 · Islamabad High Court · 2019-10-09
  dishonour of chequecriminal revisionappellate court dutyreappraisal of evidenceSection 489-F PPCdishonest intentionfair trial
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition challenged the concurrent findings of the lower courts, which convicted the petitioner under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for dishonoring a cheque. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully established the essential ingredients of the offence, specifically the dishonest intention and the validity of the underlying liability, and whether the appellate court fulfilled its duty to reappraise the evidence. The High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the essential ingredients of Section 489-F, as the cheque amount did not correspond to the actual financial liability, and the circumstances suggested coercion rather than dishonest intent. Furthermore, the court held that the appellate court failed to exercise its statutory duty under Section 423 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 by not independently discussing the evidence or providing logical reasoning. Consequently, the conviction was set aside, and the petitioner was acquitted. The judgment establishes that appellate courts must independently reappraise evidence and record detailed reasons for their decisions in criminal appeals.

  Questions settled

  • What are the essential ingredients that must be proved to secure a conviction under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Is an appellate court in a criminal case required to independently reappraise the evidence even if the appellant's counsel does not argue the merits?
  • Does a failure by the first appellate court to discuss incriminating evidence and provide independent reasoning constitute a legal error?
  Read full judgment →
• LABBAIK (PVT.) LTD. Versus PAKISTAN ELECTRONIC MEDIA REGULATORY AUTHORITY2020 PLD 343 · Islamabad High Court · 2020-03-16Read full judgment →
• JZ ENTERPRISES PVT. LIMITED Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Ministry of Communication, Government of Pakistan2020 PLD 306 · Islamabad High Court · 2020-01-29Read full judgment →
• Mst. Syeda IRSHAD FATIMA RIZVI Versus BASHIR AHMAD2020 PLD 184 · Islamabad High Court · 2019-09-03Read full judgment →
• Mst. Syeda IRSHAD FATIMA RIZVI Versus BASHIR AHMAD2020 PLD 129 · Islamabad High Court · 2019-09-03Read full judgment →
• State Versus DR. FIRDOUS ASHIQ AWAN2020 PLD 109 · Islamabad High Court · 2019-11-25
  criminal contemptpending proceedingssub judice rulefair trialunconditional apologyfreedom of expressionadministration of justice
  Summary & questions settled

  This consolidated judgment addresses two criminal contempt petitions initiated against high-ranking executive officials—Dr. Firdous Ashiq Awan, Special Assistant to the Prime Minister, and Ghulam Sarwar Khan, Federal Minister for Aviation—following press conferences and television appearances where they made statements regarding bail granted to Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif. The core legal question was whether the statements made by the executive functionaries during the pendency of judicial proceedings constituted criminal contempt by tending to prejudice the determination of pending matters, obstruct the administration of justice, and undermine public confidence in the courts. The Islamabad High Court held that the respondents' statements and attempts to create a perception of extraordinary favors constituted criminal contempt under Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Court Ordinance, 2003, and Article 204 of the Constitution. However, considering the unconditional apologies tendered by the contemnors and the general lack of societal awareness regarding criminal contempt in pending matters, the court exercised restraint and withdrew the proceedings without imposing a conviction.

  Questions settled

  • Does public criticism or commentary by government officials on a matter pending before a court constitute criminal contempt?
  • Does the submission of an unconditional apology automatically result in the discharge of contempt notices against an alleged contemnor?
  • What is the legal onus of proof in contempt of court proceedings compared to ordinary criminal trials?
  • Can the High Court entertain applications and grant urgent relief on holidays or outside regular court hours?
  Read full judgment →
• Mulana ALLAH WASAYA Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary Ministry of Law and Justice2019 PLD 62 · Islamabad High Court · 2018-07-04
  constitutional petitionfinality of prophethoodKhatm-e-NubawatQadiani groupnon-Muslim minoritiesreligious identityElections Act 2017
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment disposes of a batch of constitutional petitions concerning amendments made by the Elections Act, 2017, specifically addressing concerns over provisions related to the Qadiani and Lahori groups and the protection of the finality of the prophethood of Muhammad (PBUH). The core legal questions involved the constitutional status of these groups as non-Muslims, the necessity of maintaining clear religious identities, and whether legislative changes inadvertently diluted prior statutory protections. The court held that the state must safeguard the constitutional definition of Muslims and non-Muslims, ensure proper declarations of faith in public service and state documentation, and protect religious symbols and the finality of prophethood. The key principles laid down include the mandatory requirement for accurate religious disclosure to prevent deception, the supremacy of Islamic injunctions in legislation regarding religious identity, and the state's duty to balance the rights of minorities with the religious sensitivities and beliefs of the Muslim majority.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an Islamic State can permit non-Muslim citizens to pose themselves as Muslims or utilize exclusive Islamic symbols and epithets?
  • Does requiring citizens to disclose their personal faith and religion infringe upon the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution of Pakistan?
  • Whether the Parliament or executive authorities can enact laws that frustrate or dilute the provisions and amendments of the Constitution?
  • Is it mandatory for the state to maintain separate databases and require declarations of faith for induction into public services and official documentation?
  Read full judgment →
• SHUJA SHARIF Versus FOP2019 PLD 491 · Islamabad High Court · 2018-04-19Read full judgment →
• AFZAL KHAN SHINWARI Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN2019 PLD 422 · Islamabad High Court · 2019-04-15Read full judgment →
• HABIB BANK LIMITED Versus ABDUL SATTAR SIDDIQUI2019 PLD 352 · Islamabad High Court · 2019-02-15Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD IDREES Versus COLONEL JOSEPH EMMANUEL2018 PLD 355 · Islamabad High Court · 2018-05-11Read full judgment →
• Mst. MAROOF BEGUM AHMED Versus IJAZ-UL-HAQ2018 PLD 341 · Islamabad High Court · 2018-07-11Read full judgment →
• Dr. FAROOQ SATTAR Versus ELECTION COMMISSION OF PAKISTAN2018 PLD 300 · Islamabad High Court · 2018-06-11Read full judgment →
• Sheikh AHSAN-UD-DIN Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary Ministry of Interior2018 PLD 182 · Islamabad High Court · 2018-03-09
  locus standiaggrieved personpublic interest litigationpost-retirement benefitsexecutive authorityconstitutional petitioncontempt petitionjudges privileges
  Summary & questions settled

  This common judgment by the Islamabad High Court addresses multiple writ petitions and a criminal original petition concerning security provisions, vehicle entitlements, and post-retirement benefits of the former Chief Justice of Pakistan, Mr. Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry. The core legal questions involve the locus standi of the petitioners—lawyers seeking security on behalf of the former Chief Justice and a taxpayer challenging state-provided vehicle benefits—the interpretation of Article 207(3) of the Constitution regarding post-retirement restrictions on judges, the legality of executive dispensations for vehicles under the Rules for the Use of Staff Cars, 1980, and the applicability of the Supreme Court Judges (Leave, Pension and Privileges) Order, 1997. The court held that the petitioners lacked locus standi as aggrieved persons, that Article 207(3) only restricts professional advocacy rather than personal rights, and that executive orders bypassing cabinet approval or granting benefits beyond the Presidential Order of 1997 are unlawful. The key principles laid down include the strict interpretation of aggrieved person status in writ jurisdiction, the limits of executive authority regarding discretionary spending as enunciated in the Mustafa Impex case, and that superior court judges are exclusively entitled to privileges expressly sanctioned by the relevant Presidential Orders.

  Questions settled

  • Whether lawyers or bar association members have the locus standi under Article 199 of the Constitution to maintain a writ petition seeking security and official vehicles on behalf of a retired judge who has not approached the court himself?
  • Does Article 207(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan bar a retired judge of the Supreme Court from claiming personal legal rights or remedies other than practicing law as an advocate?
  • Whether executive orders granting vehicle privileges to retired judges outside the framework of the Supreme Court Judges (Leave, Pension and Privileges) Order, 1997 are lawful without prior cabinet approval?
  • Does a taxpayer qualify as an aggrieved person with locus standi to challenge state-allocated vehicle benefits and security arrangements provided to a retired constitutional functionary?
  Read full judgment →
• ALI RAZA Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN2017 PLD 64 · Islamabad High Court · 2017-01-05Read full judgment →
• NEO TV/MESSRS FUN INFORMATION NETWORK (PVT) LTD. Versus PEMRA through Chairman2017 PLD 48 · Islamabad High Court · 2016-11-30Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD NAWAZ Versus SHAHIDA PERVEEN2017 PLD 375 · Islamabad High Court · 2017-08-16Read full judgment →
• ISLAH-UD-DIN CHAUDHRY Versus Sardar MUHAMMAD NASEER ABBASI2017 PLD 356 · Islamabad High Court · 2017-07-12Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SOHAIL KIYANI Versus Raja MUHAMMAD ANWAR2017 PLD 162 · Islamabad High Court · 2017-03-27Read full judgment →
• Gen. (R) PERVEZ MUSHARRAF Versus State2013 PLD 66 · Islamabad High Court · 2013-04-18
  pre-arrest bailhouse arrest of judgesterrorismprohibitory clausemala fidepolice investigationproclamation of offender
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a petition for pre-arrest bail filed by General (R) Pervez Musharraf in respect of an F.I.R. registered under section 344/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, concerning the confinement of judges of superior courts following the imposition of a Provisional Constitutional Order (PCO) on November 3, 2007. The core legal question was whether the petitioner made out a case for the grant of pre-arrest bail, considering the allegations, the applicability of terrorism-related provisions, and his failure to join the police investigation. The Islamabad High Court held that the acts attributed to the petitioner, which involved confining judges and creating widespread fear and insecurity, prima facie attracted the provisions of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997, thereby bringing the case within the prohibitory clause. Furthermore, the court found an absence of mala fide on the part of the complainant or police and noted the petitioner's non-cooperation with the investigation. Consequently, the Islamabad High Court declined the pre-arrest bail and dismissed the petition.

  Questions settled

  • Whether confining judges of superior courts and disrupting the judicial system attracts offences under the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997?
  • Is pre-arrest bail maintainable when an accused fails to join the police investigation as directed by the court?
  • Whether the absence of established mala fide on the part of the complainant disentitles an accused from claiming pre-arrest bail?
  • Does an offence falling within the prohibitory clause restrict the grant of discretionary pre-arrest bail relief?
  Read full judgment →
• IKRAM ULLAH Versus State2009 PLD 9 · Islamabad High Court · 2008-06-16
  post-arrest bailprinciple of consistencyfacilitating escape from custodycorruptionstatutory delaybail granted
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.171 dated 11-4-2008 registered under sections 223 and 224 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and sections 5(2)/47 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, alleging facilitation of under-trial prisoners escaping from police custody. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail on merits and based on the principle of consistency given that a co-accused with a similar role had already been granted bail. The court held that since the petitioner had been in custody, the investigation was complete, trial had not progressed, most offences were bailable, no evidence supported the illegal gratification charge, and a co-accused at par had been granted bail, further incarceration would serve no useful purpose. The petition was consequently allowed, establishing that the principle of consistency applies when co-accused at par are granted bail, and pre-trial incarceration should not be used as a punishment when trial progress is stagnant.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the petitioner is entitled to post-arrest bail on the principle of consistency when a co-accused with a similar role has already been granted bail?
  • Does further incarceration of an accused serve any useful purpose when investigation is complete and there is no progress in the trial?
  • Can bail be granted when the prosecution fails to collect supporting evidence for allegations of illegal gratification?
  Read full judgment →
• KHAN AFSAR Versus State2009 PLD 7 · Islamabad High Court · 2008-04-28
  post-arrest bailidentification paraderobberyprohibitory clausetentative assessmentbail refusal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by the accused, who was charged with offences under sections 392, 395, 400, and 412 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, following an armed robbery at a currency exchange in Islamabad. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail despite being identified in an identification parade and having incriminating recoveries, including cash and a vehicle, linked to him. The Islamabad High Court held that the petitioner failed to make out a case for bail. The court reasoned that at the bail stage, only a tentative assessment of the evidence is permissible, and deeper appreciation of evidence is prohibited. Given that the petitioner was identified by the complainant, incriminating recoveries were made, and the offences fell within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, the court determined there was sufficient material to connect the accused to the crime. Consequently, the bail petition was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Is a deeper appreciation of evidence permitted at the bail stage?
  • Does the recovery of stolen property and identification of the accused constitute sufficient grounds to deny bail for offences falling under the prohibitory clause of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can a bail petition be granted when the accused is implicated in offences falling within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• ALI ARSHAD Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Ministry of Interior, Islamabad2009 PLD 61 · Islamabad High Court · 2009-02-10Read full judgment →
• HASHWANI HOTELS LIMITED through General Manager Versus CAPITAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, ISLAMABAD through Chairman2009 PLD 50 · Islamabad High Court · 2008-11-25Read full judgment →
• WI-TRIBE PAKISTAN LIMITED Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Federal Secretary, Information Technology and Telecom, Islamabad2009 PLD 41 · Islamabad High Court · 2009-01-21Read full judgment →
• MANZOOR ELAHI Versus ZULAIKHAN BIBI2009 PLD 4 · Islamabad High Court · 2008-03-28Read full judgment →
• UMER MUJEEB SHAMI Versus CHIEF COMMISSIONER, ISLAMABAD CAPITAL TERRITORY, ISLAMABAD2009 PLD 33 · Islamabad High Court · 2008-12-11Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD FAROOQ SULEHRIA Versus DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, ISLAMABAD2009 PLD 32 · Islamabad High Court · 2008-05-26Read full judgment →
• Maulana ABDUL MALIK WAZIR Versus ELECTION COMMISSION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary2009 PLD 19 · Islamabad High Court · 2008-09-29Read full judgment →
• Dr. SHAHID BASHIR Versus PAKISTAN MEDICAL DENTAL COUNCIL through Secretary, Islamabad2009 PLD 13 · Islamabad High Court · 2008-10-13Read full judgment →
• Mst. SHAMSHAD BIBI Versus BUSHRA BIBI2009 PLD 11 · Islamabad High Court · 2008-04-01Read full judgment →
• ABDUL MAJID KHAN Versus ELECTION COMMISSION OF AZAD JAMMU AND KASHMIR2023 PLD 17 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2021-04-28Read full judgment →
• MOHAMMAD BASHIR KHAN Versus MOHAMMAD AZAM KHAN2022 PLD 72 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2022-06-08Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD WARIS Versus DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, DISTRICT MUZAFFARABAD, AZAD JAMMU AND KASHMIR2022 PLD 52 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2021-06-12Read full judgment →
• TAYYAB ABBASI Versus AZAD JAMMU AND KASHMIR ELECTION COMMISSION, MUZAFFARABAD2021 PLD 19 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2021-06-28Read full judgment →
• Barrister ADNAN NAWAZ KHAN, ADVOCATE, SUPREME COURT OF AJ&K Versus GOVERNMENT OF THE STATE OF AZAD JAMMU AND KASHMIR2020 PLD 9 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2019-09-17Read full judgment →
• MOHAMMAD NAVEED ASIM Versus SUMAIRA MAJEED2020 PLD 1 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2019-03-19Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ANSAR CHAUDHARY Versus MAIDA ZAHOOR2019 PLD 5 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2018-10-29Read full judgment →
• SARDAR ABDUL HAMEED KHAN, JUDGE OF HIGH COURT OF AZAD JAMMU AND KASHMIR Versus GOVERNMENT OF AZAD JAMMU AND KASHMIR2018 PLD 1 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2017-10-25Read full judgment →
• ZULFIQAR ALI Versus MUHAMMAD SODAGAR2017 PLD 71 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2017-06-19Read full judgment →
• The STATE through Advocate General of the State of J&K, Muzaffarabad Versus MUHAMMAD IDREES JARRAL2017 PLD 55 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2017-03-15
  post-arrest bailbail confirmationprohibitory clausefurther inquirycriminal revision
  Summary & questions settled

  This revision petition challenges an order passed by the Judge Ehtesab Court/Anti Terrorism Court, Mirpur, confirming the post-arrest bail granted to the accused-respondents in a criminal case involving various sections of the Azad Penal Code and the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997. The core legal question revolves around whether the accused were entitled to post-arrest bail when offenses falling within the prohibitory clause had been deleted by the police during investigation, leaving offenses that did not attract the prohibition or were bailable. The High Court held that the offenses did not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, that the case called for further inquiry under Section 497(2), and that no exceptional grounds existed to interfere with the discretion exercised by the trial court in granting bail. The key principles laid down are that bail is the rule and refusal the exception when an accused is no longer required for investigation, that offenses involving negligence or lesser punishments not hitting the prohibitory clause warrant bail as a matter of right or further inquiry, and that very strong and exceptional grounds are required to set aside a bail order once granted.

  Questions settled

  • Whether bail can be granted when the offenses charged do not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does a case qualify for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when terrorist and major assault charges are deleted by the police during investigation?
  • What grounds are required for a superior court to interfere with or cancel a post-arrest bail order granted by a competent trial court?
  Read full judgment →