Summary: (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)–––S. 497–––Cancellation of bail–––Principles governing recall of bail order–––Petitioner, accused in FIR No.561/2021 under Section 406, PPC, was granted post-arrest bail on the basis of a written compromise/Iqrarnama dated 01.07.2022–––Her bail was later recalled by the trial Court for breach of the agreed terms, and the order was upheld in revision–––Held, that once bail is granted on the basis of a conditional compromise voluntarily executed by the accused herself, any failure to comply with those conditions constitutes sufficient cause for its recall–––Accused did not object to the compromise deed when it was recorded in her presence before the Magistrate, nor did she challenge its validity before any competent forum–––Allegation of coercion or duress raised belatedly after default was devoid of merit–––No illegality found in cancellation of bail based on breach of voluntarily agreed conditions. (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)–––S. 497–––Bail granted on compromise–––Effect of breach–––Although bail cannot ordinarily be made conditional, when an accused seeks release based on a settlement and undertakes specific obligations, those undertakings become enforceable–––Default or non-compliance with such voluntarily assumed conditions justifies recall of bail–––Practice deprecated where accused obtain conditional bail and later retract under pretext of coercion after benefiting from release. (c) Constitution of Pakistan–––Arts. 4, 9 & 10-A–––Due process and protection of liberty–––Scope–––Court held that cancellation of bail in consequence of non-compliance with a lawful compromise does not violate constitutional guarantees of liberty or due process when the bail order itself arose from voluntary consent of the accused–––No violation of fundamental rights established. (d) Administration of justice–––Supervisory jurisdiction of High Court–––Interference with concurrent findings–––Where both the trial Court and revisional Court have passed concurrent reasoned orders after examining the record, the High Court would not interfere in constitutional jurisdiction absent illegality or material irregularity–––Both Courts below rightly concluded that the petitioner failed to honour her own undertakings and that cancellation of bail was lawful. Disposition: Petition dismissed.

Summary: (a) Constitution of Pakistan–––Arts. 4, 9, 15, 18 & 25–––Right to movement, livelihood and dignity–––Unlawful restriction on travel–––Petitioner, a private cook employed by an Air Commodore during his posting in Italy, was repeatedly detained at the airport and prevented from travelling abroad on the pretext of being an “Army Deserter”–––Record revealed that petitioner was never an employee of any branch of the Armed Forces–––Respondents failed to produce any proof of military employment or desertion–––Held, that placing petitioner’s name on Exit Control List (ECL) without lawful authority and in absence of any credible material amounted to arbitrary exercise of power and violation of fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 4, 9, 15, 18 and 25 of the Constitution–––Such administrative action could not be sustained. (b) Exit from Pakistan (Control) Ordinance, 1981–––S. 2–––Placing of name on Exit Control List–––Scope and limitations–––Petitioner’s name was placed on ECL on intelligence recommendation labeling him as a “deserter”–––No record or service history substantiated that claim–––Mere assumption or unverified intelligence input cannot justify curtailment of constitutional right to travel abroad–––Ministry of Interior and FIA required to act strictly within statutory framework and ensure that inclusion on ECL is supported by lawful material and due process. (c) Administrative law–––Due process and abuse of authority–––Duty of public functionaries–––Held, that no citizen may be deprived of liberty or right to travel except by due process of law–––Misuse of administrative discretion to obstruct petitioner’s lawful movement constituted abuse of power and violation of constitutional guarantees. (d) Fundamental rights–––Employment abroad–––Protection of livelihood–––Where petitioner’s overseas employment and visa renewal were jeopardized by arbitrary travel restrictions, Court intervened to protect his right to earn livelihood through lawful means abroad. Disposition: Petition allowed; respondents directed to forthwith remove petitioner’s name from Exit Control List and permit him to travel abroad.

Summary: (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---- ----S. 514---Forfeiture of bond---Scope of Court’s powers---Surety’s CNIC, Passport, SIMs and bank accounts blocked by Trial Court upon absconsion of accused---Legality and proportionality of coercive measures---Held, that under S.514, Cr.P.C., the Trial Court may forfeit the bond and recover penalty from the surety upon failure to produce the accused or to show sufficient cause---However, the statute does not authorize additional coercive actions such as blocking of CNIC, Passport, SIMs, or freezing of bank accounts---Such actions directly interfere with fundamental rights and must satisfy the test of proportionality---In the absence of any allegation of mala fide or collusion between the surety and the absconding accused, the extreme measures adopted by the Trial Court were found to be excessive and unconstitutional. (b) Constitution of Pakistan---- ----Arts. 9, 15 & 25---Fundamental rights---Restrictions on movement and deprivation of identification documents---Blocking of CNIC and Passport of surety found violative of fundamental rights to liberty, movement, and equality before law---Principle of proportionality applied---Court held that actions affecting personal liberty must have lawful basis and be the least restrictive means to achieve a legitimate aim---A surety, not being an accused or convict, cannot be subjected to punitive measures beyond the scope of bond forfeiture proceedings---Such actions were declared constitutionally infirm. (c) Administration of justice---- ----Natural justice---Right of hearing---Order passed without effective opportunity of hearing---Surety unable to appear or issue power of attorney due to blocked CNIC and Passport---Held, that the principle of audi alteram partem demands that no adverse order be passed without notice and opportunity to respond---Impugned order passed without affording due process rendered unsustainable. (d) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---- ----S. 514---Deposit of surety amount---Petitioner’s offer to deposit full amount of PKR 500,000/- accepted---Purpose of surety bond achieved upon deposit---No further coercive action warranted---Trial Court directed to accept deposit and drop forfeiture proceedings accordingly. Disposition: Writ Petition allowed; Impugned Order dated 01.11.2024 set aside; CNIC, Passport, SIMs, and bank accounts of surety ordered to be unblocked subject to deposit of PKR 500,000/- before Trial Court within fifteen (15) days.

Summary: (a) National Database and Registration Authority Ordinance, 2000--- ----S. 18(1) & (2)(a)---Cancellation/impounding of CNIC---Show-cause and hearing mandatory---Scope---CNICs of petitioners were digitally impounded/blocked since 2016 without issuance of written show-cause notice or affording opportunity of hearing---Held, proviso to S.18(1) mandates prior notice and audi alteram partem; non-compliance vitiates action as offending Art.10-A, Constitution---CNIC carries presumption of truth; once issued after codal formalities, accrued rights cannot be withdrawn on suspicion or flimsy grounds---Reliance placed on Fatima v. NADRA (PLD 2022 Balochistan 73) and Muhammad Aslam v. Member (Colonies) BoR (2019 CLC 1141). (b) Pakistan Citizenship Act, 1951--- ----S.16 read with Citizenship Rules, 1952---Determination of citizenship status---Jurisdiction---NADRA/ intelligence agencies lack competence to adjudicate citizenship; eligibility linked to citizenship can only be determined by the Competent Authority/Federal Government under the Citizenship Act in the manner prescribed---NADRA may exercise S.18(2)(a) powers only after a prior, final determination under S.16 has attained finality; “blocking/suspension” of CNIC on citizenship grounds absent such determination is ultra vires---Reliance placed on Hafiz Hamdullah Saboor v. Govt. of Pakistan (PLD 2021 Islamabad 305) and Abdul Qadir v. Federation (2024 MLD 1774). (c) ---NADRA Ordinance, 2000--- ----S.18; concept of “blocking” CNIC---Impounding distinguished---Statute contains no mechanism for “blocking”; only cancellation/impounding/confiscation is contemplated, subject to notice and reasons; impounding entails taking the document into custody pursuant to due process---Reliance placed on Muhammad Umar v. Federation (PLD 2017 Sindh 585). (d) Passports Act, 1974--- ----S.8(2)---Cancellation/withholding of passport---Written notice and opportunity of hearing---Requirement---Blocking/withholding passports without prior notice is illegal and violative of due process; authorities must adhere to statutory procedure before imposing any embargo on travel documents---Followed Muhammad Aslam (2019 CLC 1141). (e) Constitutional and international guarantees--- ----Arts. 4 & 10-A, Constitution; Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Arts. 6 & 15---Citizenship as a foundational right enabling enjoyment of all other rights; arbitrary deprivation through opaque administrative measures is impermissible; measures impairing CNIC/passport paralyze fundamental civil life and must meet strict due process standards. Disposition---Petition partly allowed---NADRA and Directorate General, Immigration & Passports directed to restore petitioners’ CNICs and passports for the time being; NADRA to initiate/route appropriate proceedings before Competent Authority under the Citizenship Act, 1951 and conclude within 30 days after providing full opportunity of hearing; petitioners to cooperate and produce requisite documents---Competent Authority not precluded from proceeding per law on credible material.

Summary: (a) Constitution of Pakistan---- ----Arts. 2-A, 3, 4, 9, 14, 18 & 25---Code of Criminal Procedure (V of 1898), Ss. 22-A, 22-B, 54 & 55---Police Rules, 1934---Protection against unlawful harassment---Scope---Petitioners alleged continued harassment by police despite securing protective orders from Ex-Officio Justice of Peace---Held, that the State’s power to investigate and prosecute offences must be exercised strictly in accordance with law---Arbitrary arrest, detention, or coercive measures without registration of a cognizable offence or in defiance of judicial directions constitute a violation of fundamental rights guaranteed under Arts. 4, 9, and 14 of the Constitution---Once the Ex-Officio Justice of Peace has issued directions restraining police harassment, such orders are binding unless modified or set aside by a competent Court---Disregard of such judicial orders amounts to abuse of authority and negation of rule of law---Police officials are under statutory obligation to act fairly and lawfully in every case. (b) Administration of justice--- ----Judicial protection---Scope and effect---Where judicial protection has already been extended by Ex-Officio Justice of Peace under Ss. 22-A & 22-B, Cr.P.C., the police are bound to comply with such directives and cannot initiate retaliatory or arbitrary actions against citizens---Failure to observe such protection invites judicial interference under Art.199, Constitution. Disposition: Petition allowed; Respondents directed not to harass or summon Petitioners or their family members unlawfully; any actionable information to be processed strictly in accordance with Ss. 54 & 55, Cr.P.C., and judicial safeguards; police to comply with orders of Ex-Officio Justice of Peace in letter and spirit.