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) 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.

Summary: (a) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)––Arts. 9, 10, 10-A, 14 & 19-A––Fundamental rights––Scope––Right to liberty, dignity, and access to information––Petitioner alleged harassment by FIA officials and lack of disclosure regarding purpose of their visit––Held, constitutional rights to life, liberty, and fair trial are fundamental but not absolute; they are subject to reasonable restrictions and must operate within the framework of law––Where formal call-up notice was duly issued and inquiry related to large-scale financial impropriety, FIA’s visit to serve notice and record statement was lawful and within jurisdiction––No evidence of coercion, harassment, or illegal detention found––Petition to that extent infructuous. (b) Federal Investigation Agency Act, 1974––Investigation powers––Lawful exercise––Visit by FIA officials to workplace––Held, such visit valid when conducted to effect service of previously issued notice and to record statement; not intended for arrest or detention––Investigative authorities possess legal authority to probe complex financial crimes involving national economic security, provided inquiries remain fair, transparent, and respectful of individual dignity. (c) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898––S. 160 et seq.––Procedure before arrest––Held, no arrest or coercive action may be taken against an individual without compliance with due process including formal notice, disclosure of grounds, and adherence to procedural safeguards––Authorities directed not to initiate any coercive measures against petitioner unless legal prerequisites are fulfilled. (d) Constitutional petition––Maintainability––Relief sought already redressed––Petitioner’s grievance regarding lack of information stood resolved once he joined inquiry and recorded statement––Primary relief rendered infructuous––However, protective direction issued restraining respondents from adopting any coercive action absent legal authorization. Disposition: Petition partly allowed––Directions issued restraining arrest or coercive measures without due process––Petitioner to cooperate with ongoing investigation.