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.

• DILSHAD SULTANA Versus NOOR MUHAMMAD1993 PLD 1 · Balochistan High Court · 1992-12-23Read full judgment →
• NAZAR MUHAMMAD Versus ABDUL RAUF1992 PLD 9 · Balochistan High CourtRead full judgment →
• MAQBOOL AHMAD LEHRI Versus GOVT. OF PAKISTAN1992 PLD 47 · Balochistan High Court · 1991-09-26Read full judgment →
• GOPI CHAND Versus PEHLAJ RAI1992 PLD 30 · Balochistan High Court · 1991-10-30Read full judgment →
• KHUDA-E-DAD Versus BIBI NAZIRAN1992 PLD 21 · Balochistan High Court · 1991-11-18Read full judgment →
• AZIZULLAH MEMON, ADVOCATE Versus PAKISTAN1992 PLD 1 · Balochistan High Court · 1991-08-28Read full judgment →
• BHAGAN Versus THE STATE1990 PLD 41 · Balochistan High Court · 1990-01-08Read full judgment →
• ATTA MUHAMMAD Versus ASSISSTANT POLITICAL AGENT1990 PLD 30 · Balochistan High Court · 1989-11-13Read full judgment →
• INAYATULLAH Versus DISTRICT A.C. & D.C.1990 PLD 28 · Balochistan High Court · 1989-11-23Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD NAEEM Versus GHULAM NABI1988 PLD 9 · Balochistan High Court · 1987-09-08Read full judgment →
• GHULAM RASOOL Versus MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE II, GOVT. OF BALUCHISTAN, QUETTA1988 PLD 81 · Balochistan High Court · 1988-05-11Read full judgment →
• M. A. RASHID Versus PAKISTAN1988 PLD 70 · Balochistan High CourtRead full judgment →
• ABDULLAH SHAH Versus ABDUL GHAFFAR1988 PLD 60 · Balochistan High Court · 1988-05-26Read full judgment →
• GHULAM HADIER Versus STATION HOUSE OFFICER, CITY POLICE STATION1988 PLD 52 · Balochistan High Court · 1988-02-16Read full judgment →
• AZIZ CHAUDHARY Versus AMJAD ALI SHAH1988 PLD 46 · Balochistan High Court · 1988-04-04Read full judgment →
• SAAT MUHAMMAD Versus MUHAMMAD SLEEM QURESHI1988 PLD 42 · Balochistan High Court · 1988-02-08Read full judgment →
• MAZHAR HUSSAIN Versus MUKHTAR BEGUM1988 PLD 38 · Balochistan High Court · 1988-01-27Read full judgment →
• ZAHIRUDDIN Versus THE STATE1988 PLD 22 · Balochistan High Court · 1987-12-02Read full judgment →
• SHER MUHAMMAD Versus ABDULLAH KHAN1988 PLD 16 · Balochistan High Court · 1987-09-01Read full judgment →
• M. C. B. Versus KARIM BAKHTIAR1988 PLD 1 · Balochistan High Court · 1987-11-10Read full judgment →
• ABDUL REHMAN Versus ABDUL HAMID1984 PLD 49 · Balochistan High CourtRead full judgment →
• HIZBULLAH Versus THE STATE1984 PLD 1 · Balochistan High Court · 1983-08-21Read full judgment →
• SAIFUDDIN Versus CHAMBER OF COMMERCE BALUCHISTAN1982 PLD 136 · Balochistan High Court · 1982-07-07Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD HUSSAN Versus COLLECTOR, NASIRABAD1982 PLD 1 · Balochistan High CourtRead full judgment →
• SALOOKA STEELS LTD Versus DIRECTOR-GENERAL, COAST GUARDS OF PAKISTAN1981 PLD 1 · Balochistan High Court · 1980-08-31Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ISHAQUE KHOSTI Versus GOVERNMENT OF BALUCHISTAN1979 PLD 217 · Balochistan High Court · 1979-09-05Read full judgment →
• TAUHEEDUN NISA Versus CHIEF SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER BALUCHISTAN1978 PLD 74 · Balochistan High CourtRead full judgment →
• ABDUL BAQI Versus MUZAFFAR ALI KHAN1978 PLD 56 · Balochistan High Court · 1977-10-08Read full judgment →
• MAHBOOB ALI NAQVI Versus AUSTRALASIA BANK LTD QUETTA1976 PLD 99 · Balochistan High Court · 1976-07-01Read full judgment →
• PAKISTAN INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION KARACHI SAKINA Versus NASIR ALI1976 PLD 97 · Balochistan High Court · 1976-06-24Read full judgment →
• REGISTERED FIRM SHEIKHAN INDUSTRIES QUETTA Versus WEST PAKISTAN INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION KARACHI1976 PLD 94 · Balochistan High Court · 1976-06-08Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ANWAR Versus MOHYUDDIN1976 PLD 92 · Balochistan High Court · 1976-06-30Read full judgment →
• HUSSAIN BHAI Versus MUHAMMAD IQBAL1976 PLD 9 · Balochistan High Court · 1975-12-11Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD YAQOOB Versus ZAHIR ALAM1976 PLD 77 · Balochistan High Court · 1976-05-28Read full judgment →
• RAZIA IQBAL Versus RAZIA HUSSAIN1976 PLD 70 · Balochistan High Court · 1976-05-27Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD RAZAQ Versus PROVINCE OF BALUSHISTAN , Azizullah Memon1976 PLD 64 · Balochistan High Court · 1976-05-28Read full judgment →
• ZIKRIYA Versus ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER PISHIN1976 PLD 47 · Balochistan High Court · 1976-04-12Read full judgment →
• ZAHOOR AHMED Versus MEMBER BOARD OF REVENUE BALUCHISTAN1976 PLD 44 · Balochistan High Court · 1976-04-22Read full judgment →
• QASIM SHAH Versus DEPUTY COMMISSIONER KACHHI DISTRICT1976 PLD 42 · Balochistan High Court · 1976-03-22Read full judgment →
• NUR AHMAD KHAN Versus THE STATE1976 PLD 39 · Balochistan High Court · 1975-06-27Read full judgment →
• NUR AHMED KHAN Versus THE STATE1976 PLD 35 · Balochistan High Court · 1975-06-27Read full judgment →
• NABI BAKHSH ZEHRI Versus GOVERNMENT OF BALUCHISTAN1976 PLD 15 · Balochistan High Court · 1975-10-02Read full judgment →
• ALLAH BACHAYO Versus PROVINCE OF BALUCHISTAN1976 PLD 104 · Balochistan High Court · 1976-10-14Read full judgment →
• LAL SHAH Versus MUHAMMAD SHAFI1976 PLD 1 · Balochistan High CourtRead full judgment →
• ABDUL REHMAN Versus ADMINISTRATOR, QUETTA MUNICIPALITY1975 PLD 9 · Balochistan High Court · 1974-09-02Read full judgment →
• DAD Versus RAMZAN1975 PLD 52 · Balochistan High Court · 1975-09-10Read full judgment →
• SANAM JAN Versus ABDUL MASJOOD1975 PLD 50 · Balochistan High Court · 1975-09-04Read full judgment →
• MARKER ALKALOIDS LTD, QUETTA Versus EMPLOYEES' UNION1975 PLD 5 · Balochistan High Court · 1974-09-12Read full judgment →
• FAZAL HUSSAIN HASHMI Versus THE STATE1975 PLD 45 · Balochistan High Court · 1975-08-20Read full judgment →
• HAZOOR BUX Versus MUHAMMAD YAKOOB1975 PLD 39 · Balochistan High Court · 1975-07-16Read full judgment →
• E. C. RATTI Versus ARTHUR DENNIS1975 PLD 35 · Balochistan High Court · 1975-04-14Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD LAL Versus ABDUL QUDDUS1975 PLD 29 · Balochistan High Court · 1973-04-14Read full judgment →
• MANZOOR HUSSAIN Versus LEGAL REPESENTATIVES OF SHAH JAHAN1975 PLD 22 · Balochistan High Court · 1975-04-17Read full judgment →
• SUHBAT KHAN Versus THE STATE1975 PLD 18 · Balochistan High Court · 1975-04-17Read full judgment →
• SHAH MUHAMMAD KHAN Versus GHULAM QADIR ETC.1971 PLD 9 · Bahawalpur · 1969-10-07Read full judgment →
• ABDUL RAZAQ Versus THE STATE1971 PLD 65 · Bahawalpur · 1971-10-29Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD KHAN Versus GOVERNMENT OF WEST PAKISTAN AND OTHERS-1971 PLD 53 · Bahawalpur · 1971-04-30Read full judgment →
• CH. NASEER-UD-DIN Versus GOVERNMENT OF WEST PAKISTAN THROUGH CHIEF SECRETARY1971 PLD 45 · Bahawalpur · 1971-04-28Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD BAKHSH Versus ZIA ULLAH1971 PLD 42 · Bahawalpur · 1971-04-22Read full judgment →
• ALI MUHAMMAD Versus MST. RABIA BIBI1971 PLD 38 · Bahawalpur · 1971-04-22Read full judgment →
• MST. KHUDIJA BEGUM Versus THE STATE1971 PLD 19 · Bahawalpur · 1969-07-01Read full judgment →
• MIAN ABDUR REHMAN Versus HAJI MOHAMMAD HUSSAIN AND ANOTHER1971 PLD 17 · Bahawalpur · 1970-11-24Read full judgment →
• HAJI BAHAWAL KHAN Versus ABDUL AZIZ AND OTHERS1971 PLD 11 · Bahawalpur · 1969-09-30Read full judgment →
• DIN MUHAMMAD Versus THE COMMISSIONER, BAHAWALPUR DIVISION AND OTHERS1971 PLD 1 · Bahawalpur · 1969-10-08Read full judgment →
• SULEMAN Versus MOHAMMAD FIROZE KHAN AND OTHERS1970 PLD 109 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and KashmirRead full judgment →
• GHULAM AHMAD AND OTHERS Versus MST. RABIA BIBI AND OTHSRS1970 PLD 1 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1969-11-03Read full judgment →
• SARDAR KHAN ALIAS DARA AND 3 OTHERS Versus DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, KOHAT AND 2 OTHERS1970 PLD 1 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• GHULAM MUSTAFA AND 27 OTHERS Versus THE CHIEF ADMINISTRATOR, AUQAF, WEST PAKISTAN, LAHORE1970 PLD 619 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Mst. SHAMIM AKHTAR Versus Mst. RASHIM BIBI2009 PLD 1 · Islamabad High Court · 2008-05-14Read full judgment →
• GHULAM ALI Versus THE STATE1981 PLD 243 · Federal Shariat CourtRead full judgment →
• Hafiz MUHAMMAD AMEEN ETC. Versus ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF PAKISTAN AND OTHERS1981 PLD 23 · Federal Shariat Court · 1980-12-13Read full judgment →
• ABDUL KHALEQUE Versus JADAV CHANDRA MALI OPPOSITE1970 PLD 10 · Dacca · 1968-04-18Read full judgment →
• ABUL OLA Versus THE STATE1970 PLD 1 · Dacca · 1969-05-28Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ASLAM Versus TAE COMMISSIONER, LAHORE DIVISION, LAHORE1972 PLD 1 · Board of Revenue, Punjab · 1971-07-14Read full judgment →
• ABDUL QADIR ETC Versus THE STATE1970 PLD 1 · BahawalpurRead full judgment →
• ABDUL KHALIQ Versus THE STATE1970 PLD 166 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1970-01-20
  approver testimonyaccomplice evidencecorroborationmurdercriminal appealblood-stained recoveriesdeath sentence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from a conviction under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and section 13 of the West Pakistan Arms Ordinance 1965, resulting in a death sentence confirmed by the High Court. The core legal question was whether the uncorroborated testimony of an approver was sufficiently supported by independent corroborative evidence in material particulars regarding the appellant's complicity in the murder. The Supreme Court held that the testimony of the approver was adequately corroborated by independent evidence, including the recovery of a blood-stained knife and garments at the instance of the appellant, corresponding hand injuries sustained by both the approver and the appellant, and evidence establishing a motive. The key principle laid down is that while an accomplice's testimony can legally form the basis of a conviction, a rule of prudence requires independent corroboration on material points linking the accused to the crime, the extent of which depends on the facts and circumstances of each case.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the uncorroborated testimony of an approver can form the basis of a conviction in a criminal case?
  • What is the extent and nature of corroboration required for the testimony of an accomplice?
  • Does the recovery of incriminating articles at the instance of an accused furnish sufficient corroboration in material particulars?
  Read full judgment →
• MST. HABIB KHATOON Versus SARDAR MUHAMMAD1970 PLD 162 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1969-11-21
  temporary injunctiondisplaced personsland settlementmutation of inheritancejurisdiction of civil courtspermanent settlementevacuee property
  Summary & questions settled

  These pauper appeals arose from two civil suits challenging an order of the Settlement Commissioner that modified the mutation of inheritance of a deceased displaced person to include his omitted daughter, thereby reducing the shares of other heirs who had sold the land to the respondents. The respondents obtained temporary injunctions from the trial court, which were reversed by the Additional District Judge on the ground that Section 25 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act 1958 barred the suits. The High Court, however, restored the injunctions, holding that because absolute proprietary rights had vested in the allottees under Section 16 of the Act, the property ceased to be evacuee and the civil courts had exclusive jurisdiction. The Supreme Court of Pakistan reversed the High Court's decision, holding that under the proviso to Section 15(3) of the Act, no permanent settlement can occur while an appeal or revision is pending. Since the daughter's revision petition was pending on the statutory date of permanent settlement, the property had not permanently vested under Section 16, and the Settlement Commissioner retained exclusive jurisdiction.

  Questions settled

  • Does a civil court have jurisdiction to entertain a suit challenging an order of the Settlement Commissioner when a revision petition regarding the land was pending at the time of the purported permanent settlement?
  • Whether land can be deemed permanently settled under Section 16 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act 1958 while an appeal, revision, or review regarding the allotment is pending before a Rehabilitation Authority?
  • Does the bar of jurisdiction under Section 25 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act 1958 apply to disputes where the statutory conditions for permanent settlement have not been fully satisfied?
  Read full judgment →
• MESSRS COMMERCE BANK LTD., KARACHI Versus MST. NAFIZUN NISA BEGUM1970 PLD 462 · Sindh High Court · 1969-12-23Read full judgment →
• HAJI ABDUL GHANI Versus THE STATE1970 PLD 46 · Sindh High Court · 1969-07-31Read full judgment →
• ABDUL MAJID Versus GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN2009 PLD 861 · Shariat Appellate Bench · 2009-05-07Read full judgment →
• MUKAMMIL SHAH Versus MST. APOGAI1970 PLD 110 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• ALTAF HUSSAIN Versus THE STATE1970 PLD 436 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Miss KIRAN ARIF MIAN Versus Miss KINZA KHALID2008 PLD 11 · Islamabad High Court · 2008-04-08Read full judgment →
• KHURSHID AHMED Versus ZEENAT BEGUM2003 PLD 25 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2003-04-18Read full judgment →
• ARIF HUSSAIN DAR Versus BOARD OF REVENUE through Secretary2002 PLD 14 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2002-02-27
  writ petitionstatutory rulesexecutive policyappointmentpatwarirecruitment banservice laws
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition under section 44 of the Azad J&K Interim Constitution Act, 1974 challenged the appointment of respondents Nos. 5 and 6 as Patwaris by the Board of Revenue, alleging violations of a previous High Court judgment, a government policy regarding local appointments, and a recruitment ban. The core legal question was whether executive policy notifications or recruitment bans could override statutory service rules framed under a statute, and whether appointments made during a ban were illegal when relaxation had been obtained. The High Court dismissed the petition, holding that executive instructions, policies, and notifications cannot override or amend statutory rules framed under a statute, and that validly obtained relaxation neutralised the effect of the recruitment ban. The key principle laid down is that statutory service rules prevail over inconsistent government policies, executive notifications, or instructions.

  Questions settled

  • Can an executive policy notification override or amend statutory service rules framed under a statute?
  • Does a recruitment ban invalidate appointments where formal relaxation has been obtained from the government?
  • Whether district-wide merit lists prepared under statutory service rules must prevail over local preference policies contained in executive notifications?
  Read full judgment →
• SAMI ULLAH Versus SUB. MUHAMMAD ASGHAR1972 PLD 10 · Board of Revenue, Punjab · 1971-10-26Read full judgment →
• ABDUL HAMEED Versus SABZAL1975 PLD 1 · Balochistan High Court · 1974-09-10Read full judgment →
• 1971 PLD 471971 PLD 47 · Balochistan High Court · 1971-01-27Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AMIN IETC Versus MIAN MUHAMMAD1970 PLD 5 · Bahawalpur · 1969-10-08Read full judgment →
• "The State, Javaid Ahmed alias Jaidi vs Javaid Ahmed alias Jaidi, The2025 LHC · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• [The Civil Courts (Amendment) Act, 2025 and Transfer of Appeals from2025 IHC 396 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
• Zunair Younas (Crl.P.532/18), Nasim Akhtar (Crl.Ps.444-L & 445-L/18) vs The2025 SCP 169 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  circumstantial evidencecustodial disclosureArticle 40 QSOlast seen evidencedue processprocedural safeguardsbenefit of doubtpolice investigation
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal petition challenged a High Court judgment maintaining the petitioner's conviction for murder and sodomy. The case rested entirely on circumstantial evidence, including motive, last seen testimony, and alleged recoveries. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the conviction and acquitting the petitioner. The Court held that the prosecution failed to establish a complete chain of circumstances, noting that the medical evidence was inconclusive and the last seen testimony lacked necessary corroboration. Crucially, the Court delineated the doctrinal boundaries of Article 40 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, regarding custodial disclosures. It emphasized that such disclosures must be specific, documented, and independently corroborated. The Court ruled that recoveries lacking procedural integrity—such as those without signed, attested documentation—lack probative value. Furthermore, the Court established mandatory guidelines for law enforcement, requiring disclosure statements to be reduced to writing, signed by the investigating officer, and attested by independent witnesses to ensure due process and prevent the fabrication of evidence. The Court also affirmed that a conviction cannot be sustained when co-accused with identical roles have been acquitted on the same evidence.

  Questions settled

  • What are the essential legal requirements for the admissibility of custodial disclosures under Article 40 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984?
  • Can a conviction be sustained on circumstantial evidence when co-accused sharing identical roles have been acquitted on the same evidence?
  • Does the failure to produce forensic evidence, such as DNA reports, allow the court to draw an adverse inference against the prosecution?
  • What procedural safeguards must law enforcement agencies follow when recording custodial disclosures to ensure their evidentiary validity?
  Read full judgment →
• Zulfqiar Khan etc, Hasnain Abbas Shah vs The State, etc2025 LHC 4928 · Lahore High Court · 2025-07-02
  criminal appealbenefit of doubtocular evidencemedical evidenceFIR delayacquittalcriminal revision
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentences of the appellants for murder and attempted murder under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal questions concerned whether the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt, given significant delays in lodging the FIR, contradictions in ocular evidence, and conflicts between the medical report and eyewitness accounts. The Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the appellants. It found that the unexplained four-hour delay in reporting the crime, the failure of eyewitnesses to provide consistent accounts regarding the specific roles of the accused, and the direct conflict between the medical evidence regarding firing distance and the ocular testimony rendered the prosecution's case unreliable. Furthermore, the Court noted that the recovery of weapons was procedurally flawed and that the prosecution withheld material witnesses. Consequently, the Court set aside the convictions and acquitted the appellants, emphasizing that a single reasonable doubt is sufficient to entitle an accused to acquittal. The revision petition for enhancement of sentence was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Does a significant, unexplained delay in lodging an FIR create reasonable doubt regarding the prosecution's case?
  • Can a conviction be sustained when the ocular account of eyewitnesses directly contradicts the medical evidence regarding the distance of the fire?
  • Is the recovery of a weapon considered reliable if the independent witnesses to the recovery are given up by the prosecution?
  • What is the effect of withholding material witnesses on the prosecution's case under the Qanoon-e-Shahadat Order 1984?
  Read full judgment →
• Zulfiqar Ali Memon & others vs Federation of Pakistan & others2025 SHC KHI 2023 · Sindh High Court · 2025-08-11Read full judgment →
• Zulfiqar Ahmed Alias Bhutto vs The State2025 IHC 518 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-06-26
  narcotics recoverychain of custodycharascontrol of narcotic substancesstatutory presumptionpolice witnessesjail appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This jail appeal arises from a judgment passed by the Special Judge CNSA/ASJ East, Islamabad, convicting the appellant under Section 9(1)(3)(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, and sentencing him to nine years of rigorous imprisonment with a fine following the alleged recovery of 1120 grams of charas. The core legal questions involve whether the prosecution successfully established the recovery, maintained an unbroken chain of custody, and whether the non-association of private witnesses vitiated the proceedings. The Islamabad High Court held that the testimonies of the official witnesses were consistent, the chain of custody of the narcotic substance remained intact with seals unimpaired, and the absence of private witnesses does not invalidate recovery where police witnesses are credible. The court affirmed the conviction, holding that the statutory presumption under Section 29 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 remained unrebutted by the appellant. The key principles laid down emphasize that official witnesses can suffice in narcotics cases if confidence-inspiring, and that safe custody and transmission via Register No. XIX and road certificates are crucial for establishing the prosecution's case.

  Questions settled

  • Does the non-association of private witnesses vitiate a narcotics recovery when police witnesses are consistent and credible?
  • Whether the prosecution successfully established an unbroken chain of custody for the transmitted narcotic sample?
  • How does the statutory presumption under Section 29 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 operate when the accused fails to lead defense evidence?
  • Are entries in Register No. XIX and the road certificate relevant for proving the safe custody and transmission of case property?
  Read full judgment →
• Zuhaib vs The State2025 MLD 721 · Sindh High Court · 2024-10-18
  post-arrest bailrule of consistencyparitydacoityno-objection affidavitfurther inquiry
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by the applicant, Zohaib Soomro, who was charged under Section 395 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The applicant sought bail after the trial court rejected his initial request, despite co-accused persons having been granted bail by the same court. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to the rule of consistency and parity, given that co-accused persons facing similar allegations had already been granted bail, and the complainant had submitted an affidavit of no objection. The Sindh High Court held that the applicant’s case was at par with, or on better footings than, the co-accused who had been granted relief. The court emphasized the principle of consistency in judicial orders and the significance of the complainant's no-objection affidavit. Consequently, the court allowed the bail application under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, finding that the applicant’s case fell within the scope of further inquiry, and directed his release upon furnishing solvent surety.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an accused is entitled to bail on the principle of parity when co-accused persons facing similar allegations have already been granted bail?
  • Does a complainant's affidavit of no objection constitute a relevant factor for the grant of bail in a non-compoundable offence?
  • When does a case fall under the scope of further inquiry for the purpose of bail under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Zuhaib Ahmed vs Province of Sindh & others2025 SHC 436 · Sindh High Court · 2025-03-26
  departmental inquirypolice disciplinary proceedingssuccessive inquiriesmisconductwrit jurisdictioncivil servantfair trialSindh Police E&D Rules
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed by an Assistant Sub-Inspector of Sindh Police challenging ongoing departmental inquiry proceedings and seeking a de novo impartial inquiry. The petitioner alleged that the inquiry was biased, that the competent authority unlawfully ordered a re-inquiry after the first inquiry officer recommended a minor punishment, and that he was denied a fair trial. The Sindh High Court examined whether successive departmental inquiries are permissible under the rules and whether writ jurisdiction can be invoked during ongoing disciplinary proceedings. The Court held that the relevant efficiency and discipline rules do not debar an authority from ordering successive inquiries to uncover the truth, and that internal departmental proceedings concerning service matters should not be prematurely intercepted by the high court under its writ jurisdiction when an adequate statutory remedy like appeal or revision is available. The Court concluded that the petitioner failed to demonstrate malice or a violation of fundamental rights, and dismissed the petition, emphasizing that institutional autonomy in disciplinary matters should be respected.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an authority is competent to order a re-inquiry or successive inquiries under the Sindh Police (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules 1988 if it disagrees with the findings of the first inquiry officer?
  • Can the High Court interfere with ongoing departmental disciplinary proceedings under its constitutional writ jurisdiction?
  • Whether the initiation of disciplinary proceedings and ordering of a re-inquiry by a departmental authority violates the right to a fair trial under Article 10-A of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  Read full judgment →
• Zubair Wahid Khan vs Touseef Alam2025 LHC 413 · Lahore High Court · 2025-02-12Read full judgment →
• Zubair Waheed Khan vs Touseef Alam2025 LHC 391 · Lahore High Court · 2025-02-12Read full judgment →
• Zubair Ul Haq vs Izhar Ul Haq etc2025 PHC 168 · Peshawar High Court · 2025-05-22Read full judgment →