Summary: (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----S. 497---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 419, 420, 468, 471 & 109---Prevention of Trafficking in Persons Act (XXXIV of 2018), Ss. 3, 4 & 5---Trafficking in persons through forged documents---Bail, dismissal of---Allegations against the accused-applicant were that she transported the minor to a foreign country by showing the minor as her real son whereas she was not biological mother of the minor---Role and material attributed towards the applicant/”KS” reflected that the child was in her custody when they were intercepted at the airport---Child was being taken to M-(Mozambique) by accused-applicant “KS” by claiming herself as the real mother of the child---During such travel accused/applicant “KS” was carrying identification and travel documents of the child, like birth certificate, passport, visa etc., wherein she was shown as the real mother of the child---For procuring all the referred and other documents, money was received and paid through co-accused persons---Birth Certificate of the child was obtained from the concerned Union Council by her in violation of 'Birth Death, Marriage and Divorce Registration Bye-Laws 2017'---No guardianship certificate by a Court of competent jurisdiction was applied by accused/applicant “KS” for adopting the said child---Victim child was being carried out of Pakistan's territory; and as per statement of accused/applicant “KS”, the child was to be handed over by accused/applicant “KS” in M-(Mozambique) to her husband for her boss---No enmity or mala fide against FIA officials had been pointed out for her implication---In view of the said role and material on record, on a tentative and prima facie assessment, a strong prima facie case with ample material establishedapplicant’s connection along with active participation in the alleged crime of child trafficking, in connivance with other co-accused as an 'organised criminal group' with international links and pointed towards her central role in the whole scheme---In view whereof, no case of 'further inquiry' was made out in favour of accused/applicant “KS”---Bail application was dismissed, in circumstances. Sadiq Hussain and another v. Deputy Director, Federal Investigation Agency and others 2025 PCr. Lj 1145 rel. (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----S. 497---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 419, 420, 468, 471 & 109---Prevention of Trafficking in Persons Act (XXXIV of 2018), Ss. 3, 4 & 5---Trafficking in Persons through forged documents---Bail, grant of---Female accused---Old age---Fragile health---Allegations against the applicant/Dr. “MN” were that the birth certificate of the victim child was issued by her, containing information that the accused/”KS” was the real mother of the child---Moreover, a stamp was also affixed on the said certificate, which showed her as working in SSGC Medical Services and Department, which had been verified by the Investigating Officer and had been reported as fake by the said institution, while in reality, she already retired way back in 2016---All subsequent documents, from NADRA and Passport office etc., were prepared based upon such birth certificate---Said applicant on the other hand claimed that she was not present at the time of the birth of the child, since the birth procedure was conducted by a midwife and therefore she issued the certificate in good faith, as per information provided to her by co-accused “YM”---Although the allegedly impersonating stamp might not have much of an impact on the present case, but on a tentative and prima facie assessment, the birth certificate itself was enough to connect her with the crime and take her case out of the ambit of 'Further Inquiry'---Role and material attributed to the third applicant/”YM” was that she actively participated in the crime as the child was given under the care of Lady “L” through “YM”---Arrangements for issuance of birth certificate of the victim child dated 04.09.2024 through Dr. “MN”/applicant was also done by “YM”---Expenses on account of CRC, Passport, caretaker's wages, etc. were borne by the husband of accused “KS” which were paid through “YM”---Lastly, “YM” also visited and took custody of the child from Dr. “L”, the government employee and CEO of the NGO, Nayab Welfare Orphanage---Hence, on a tentative and prima facie assessment, amplematerial in the form of statements, mobile calls, chats and other documents hadbeen collected by the Investigating Officer which connected her with an active role and linked her with the international handlers in M-(Mozambique) and also with local co-accused persons, which was enough to connect her with the crime; hence no case of 'further inquiry' was made out in her favour---However, the only factor, which convinced the court to exercise discretion for grant of bail in favour of these two applicants (Dr. “MN” and “YM”) was that Dr. MN was a retired doctor and widow of advanced age of around 69 years, who was suffering from heart ailment---Whereas “YM” was also an old aged widow lady of around 68 years; and both of them were in custody since past more than three months---Investigating Officer confirmed that challan to their extent had been submitted, whereas further investigation was ongoing---Hence, solely on such considerations of old age and fragile health, the bail applications of Dr. “MN” and “YM” were allowed, in circumstances. Rashid Mustafa Solangi and Imtiaz Ali Jatoi for Applicant (in Criminal Bail Application No. 2267 of 2025). Shaukat Hayyat, Syed Muhammad Abdul Kabir and Miss Amna Magsi for Applicant (in Criminal Bail Application No. 1810 of 2025). Aamir Mansoor Qureshi for Applicant (in Criminal Bail Application No. 1777 of 2025). Shah Hussain, Assistant Attorney General along with IO/SI Rafia Altaf of FIA, AHT Circle, Karachi for the State. Date of hearing: 25th September, 2025. Muhammad Hasan (Akber), J.--- This common order will decide the subject three bail applications, in view of their inter-connected facts in the same crime. The proceedings were initiated in Crime No.191/2025, registered at P.S. FIA AHT Circle, Karachi for offences under Sections 3, 4, 5 of the Prevention of Trafficking in Persons Act, 2018 (Amended 2025), [PTPA] read with Sections 419, 420, 468, 471, 109, P.P.C. Earlier, the bail applications by all three applicants, Kiran Sohail, Dr. Mumtaz Nayani and Yasmin Mawani were rejected by the learned Special Judge (Central-II), Karachi vide common Order dated 23.07.2025, which has been impugned herein.

Summary: (a) Passports Rules, 2021--- ----R. 22---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 15---Placing name on Passport Control list (PCL)---Whether power to do so laid with Federal Investigation Agency or Federal Government---Petitioners were implicated in FIR registered under Ss.419, 420, 468, 471, 473, 109 & 34, P.P.C, read with Ss.36 & 37 of the Electronic Transactions Ordinance and S.4 of Anti Money Laundering Act, 2010---Initially they were admitted to bail, but were subsequently acquitted by the District Court, however, the acquittal appeal filed against their acquittal order was partly accepted and matter was remanded for fresh decision, but in the post-remand proceedings, they were convicted---On filing of appeal, this Court suspended the conviction and sentence, and released the petitioners on bail---When the petitionersattempted to travel abroad to perform Umrah, they were stopped at the airport and informed that their names had been placed on the blacklist/Passport Control List by the DG Immigration & Passport on the recommendation of Federal Investigation Agency (FIA)---Held: Right to travel formed an essential part of the fundamental rights to life and liberty and could only be restricted under a valid law enacted in the public interest---Any restraint on movement must have lawful justification and could not be imposed arbitrarily---Executive discretion must be exercised fairly, reasonably and in good faith and within the bounds of law---Administrative instructions or policies could not curtail constitutional rights beyond statutory authority and mere pendency of criminal proceedings was not sufficient to prohibit movement---Restrictions such as blacklisting must be applied sparingly, after application of mind and must not be indefinite or disproportionate---Executive must not act mechanically on departmental recommendations---Placement on an exit or Passport Control List could not be automatic upon registration of FIR or even upon pendency of proceedings; if a person was on bail, released or not a proclaimed offender, the authority must give cogent, specific reasons before curtailing his/her constitutional right to travel---Suspension of sentence did not ipso facto amount to acquittal; however, suspension neutralized theoperative effect of a conviction for the time being and enlivened the petitioners' right to be treated as persons entitled to procedural fairness---Even for persons who stand convicted, any preventive restriction on fundamental rights must have clear statutory backing and must be exercised after application of mind and by giving reasons---Rules could not be used in a mechanical fashion to perpetuate deprivation of a constitutional right without review and without the administrative authority stating cogent grounds---Absence of any record of reconsideration of any fresh security assessment, or of any contemporaneous reasons why the petitioners should continue to be prevented from travelling, led the Court to the conclusion that the placement on Passport Control List was not the result of an exercise of reasoned discretion---Where the rule was invoked the authority must showed that the case fell squarely within the categories enumerated in the Rule; that the decision was not taken mechanically, but after application of mind; that the restriction was proportionate to the mischief sought to be prevented; and that the person affected was given an opportunity to be heard, unless the urgency of the circumstance rendered such hearing impracticable and then the authority must nevertheless record reasons for not giving such hearing---None of those safeguards were visible on the record before this Court in respect of the petitioners---Rule 22(1) contemplated that the Federal Government was vested with the power to regulate departure and entry and the Division concerned and Directorate General shall prepare and maintain the Passport Control List; yet there was nothing on record to indicate that any approval by the Federal Government, where required, hadbeen obtained in relation to those entries, or that the competent Division applied its mind to the matter---For reasons of good governance and to avoid arbitraryexercise of power, entries on Passport Control List could not be made or maintained in a clandestine, mechanical and non-reviewable manner---Respondents had not produced any material to show that the petitioners posed a continuing security risk, which could not be addressed by less restrictive measures, for instance, by conditional travel permission, surrendering of passports to the Trial Court, or by Court-ordered restrictions tailored to ensure presence for trial---Record showed that the petitioners were on bail, their appeal was pending and their conviction was suspended---Principal rationale advanced in support of the Passport Control List entry (fear of absconsion) had not been supported by evidence of any attempts to flee or of any threat to national security---In the absence of such material, continuing the bar on travel was disproportionate---Constitutional petition was allowed, in circumstances. Federation of Pakistan v. General (Retd). Pervez Musharraf PLD 2016 SC 570; Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif v. President of Pakistan PLD 1993 SC 473; Pakistan Muslim League (N) v. Federation of Pakistan PLD 2007 SC 642; Al-Jehad Trust v. Federation of Pakistan PLD 1996 SC 324; Federal Government v. Ayyan Ali 2017 SCMR 1179; Sheikh Shan Ilahi v. Federation of Pakistan PLD 2023 Lah. 359; Dada Amir Haider Khan’s case PLD 1987 SC 504; Wajid Shams-ud-Hassan v. Federation of Pakistan PLD 1997 Lah. 617; Shabana Noor Ahmed v. DG Immigration and Passport PlD 2019 Sindh 456; Sayed Zulfikar Abbas Bukhari v. Federation of Pakistan PlD 2019 Isl. 316 and Riaz Ahmed v. Government of Pakistan PLD 2014 Isl. 29 rel. (b) Passports Rules, 2021--- ----R. 22---Placing name on Passport Control list (PCL)---Requirements and guidelines---No person shall be placed on the Passport Control List without a contemporaneous record of reasons showing application of mind;wherever practicable a show-cause notice shall be issued before placing a person on Passport Control List and an opportunity of hearing he afforded; where emergency action is taken without prior notice, reasons for omission of prior notice must be recorded in writing and the matter must be reviewed within a reasonable time; andperiodic review of entries on Passport Control List must be undertaken to ensure no person is kept on the list mechanically or indefinitely. Raja Rizwan Abbasi for Petitioner. Ms. Shaista Tabassum, A.A.G for the State. Mohsin Afzal, A.D CCRC, Islamabad.

Summary: (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----S. 497(1), third proviso---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 409, 419, 420, 468, 471, 472, 473, 109 & 34---Prevention of Corruption Act (II of 1947), S. 5(2)---Criminal breach of trust by public servant, cheating by personation, cheating and dishonestly inducing someone to deliver property, forgery for the purpose of cheating, use of a forged document as genuine, counterfeit seals, making or possessing a counterfeit seal or instrument with the intent to commit forgery, abetment, common intention, criminal misconduct---Statutory delay in conclusion of trial---Accused sought their bail on the ground of delay in conclusion of trial---Held: Allegations against the accused-petitioners were that they being Administrators and Officers of the Cooperative Societies Department, in active connivance with a land grabber illegally usurped the Society, misplaced original records, filed fake memberships before Court, engineered elections in September 2020 and installed a dummy management, thereafter, bogus plot files were prepared and sold to the public, crime proceeds of approx. Rs.130 million were laundered through various accounts and two properties were purchased in an other Society---In the instant case, the applicants were charged with offences punishable under Ss.409/419/420/ 471/472/473/109/34, P.P.C. read with S.5(2) PCA-II, 1947, which were not punishable up to death, hence their bail plea was covered under part(a) of the third proviso to S.497(1), Cr.P.C.---Said provision provided that if an accused remained detained exceeding one year without conclusion of trial, the law mandated his release on bail---For the purposes of commencement of time under the third proviso to S.497(1), Cr.P.C., period for the conclusion of the trial was to be calculated from the date of the arrest/detention of the accused and it was of little importance as to when the charge was framed and the trial commenced---In the absence of any material to the effect that the applicants were previously convicted, on a tentative assessment, the applicants did not appear to fall under the parameters of hardened, desperate or dangerous criminals---Certified copies of diaries of the Trial Court as available on record also clearly depicted that delay had not been caused in trial due to act or omission from the side of the applicant/accused---Both the applicants were arrested on 16.05.2024 and had remained detained since past more than one year and three months---Prosecutor informed that there were total number of 26 accused involved in this case out of which 6 had absconded whereas 18 accused persons had already been granted bails on different grounds and only present two applicants were presently behind bars---Prosecutor further informed about the position of the trial that 'Charge' had not been framed as yet, whereas the Court was presently vacant---In these circumstances, it appeared that the trial had not even commenced as yet, and the same was not likely to conclude in near future---On a tentative assessment, a case for grant of bail on the ground of statutory delay in the conclusion of trial was prima facie made out within the ambit of S.497, Cr.P.C.---Bail application was allowed, in circumstances. Nadeem Samson v. the state and others PLD 2022 SC 142; Shakeel Shah v. The State and others 2022 SCMR 1; Muhammad Usman v. The State and another 2024 SCMR 28; Nazir Hussain v. Zia-ul-Haq and others 1983 SCMR 72; Moundar and others v. The State PLD 1990 SC 934; Sher Ali alias Sheri v. The State 1998 SCMR 190; Akhtar Abbas v. State PLD 1982 SC 424; Abdul Rashid v. The State 1998 SCMR 897; Zahid Hussain Shah v. The State PLD 1995 SC 49; Muhammad Siddique v. Muhammad Behram and another 1998 PCr.LJ 358; Allah Wasaya v. The State and others PLD 2022 SC 541; Shahzad Ahmed v. The State through FIA Islamabad 2010 SCMR 1221; Shameel Ahmed v. The State 2009 SCMR 174; Riaz Ahmed and others v. Federation of Pakistan through Chairman, National Accountability Bureau NAB and others 2021 PCr.LJ 1182 and Tallat Ishaq v. National Accountability Bureau through Chairman PLD 2019 SC 112 rel. (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----S. 497---Bail order---Observations of the Court---Scope---Observations made in bail order being tentative in nature, should not influence the Trial Court to independently adjudicate the case on its own merits. Nisar Ahmed Tarar for Applicants (in Criminal Bail Application No. 1514 of 2025). Saad Fayaz for Applicant (in Criminal Bail Application No. 1519 of 2025). Muhammad Najeeb Jamali for the Complainant (in Criminal Bail Applications Nos. 1514 and 1519 of 2025). Muhammad Ahmed, Assistant Attorney General for the State. Date of hearing: 21st August, 2025. Muhammad Hasan (Akber), J .--- Through this single order, both the subject bail applications are being decided which have been filed against the common order dated 02.06.2025 passed by learned Special Judge, `(Central-II), Karachi in FIR No.16/2024, registered under Sections 409/419/420/468/471/472/473/109/34 P.P.C read with Section 5(2) PCA-II, 1947 at Police Station F.I.A ACC, Karachi, whereby post a risk bill to both the applicants has been rejected.

Summary: Bail granted --- (a) Pakistan Penal Code (XLV of 1860) ---- Ss. 171, 419 & 420 --- Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1908) ---- S. 497 --- Bail After Arrest --- Through instant petition, Waqas Javed, petitioner, has assailed order dated 03.06.2025 passed by learned Islamabad High Court, Islamabad, with prayer to set aside said order and grant post-arrest bail to him in case registered vide FIR No. 230 dated 30.04.2025 under Sections 171, 419 & 420 PPC at Police Station Margalla, Islamabad --- Arguments heard --- Record perused --- As per contents of FIR, petitioner impersonated himself as intelligence officer, as well as, as media anchor and also made illegal demands from Fahad Iqbal, Inspector FIA and asked him to share source report regarding some unlawful activities about white collar crimes carried out in local territory --- Petitioner also extended threats to complainant party, hence, FIR of this case --- Offences under Sections 420 and 171 PPC are bailable and grant of bail in such like offences is right of accused whereas offence under Section 419 PPC does not fall within ambit of prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.P.C. and grant of bail in such like cases is rule while refusal is exception --- No exceptional ground has been pointed out by learned Law Officer to refuse bail to petitioner, hence, petitioner is entitled to relief of post-arrest bail as observed in cases of Khalil Ahmed Soomro Vs. The State (PLD 2017 SC 730) and Muhammad Tanveer Vs. The State (PLD 2017 SC 733) --- Although it is argued by learned Law Officer that petitioner is also involved in one other criminal case but it is by now well settled that mere involvement of accused in some other case(s) by itself is no ground to refuse bail to him if otherwise he is entitled to said relief on merits --- Reference in this context may be made to cases of Muhammad Rafique Vs. The State (1997 SCMR 412) and Jamal ud Din alias Zubair Khan Vs. The State (2012 SCMR 573) --- Consequently, this petition is converted into appeal and allowed --- Impugned order is set aside --- Petitioner is granted post-arrest bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in sum of Rs.200,000/- with one surety in like amount to satisfaction of learned Trial Court --- Petition was allowed accordingly.

Summary: (a) Companies Act (XIX of 2017)--- ----Ss.476, 477 & 497---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss. 154 & 561-A---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 419, 420, 468, 471, 408 & 409---Quashing of FIR---Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court---Scope---Petitioners/accused sought quashing of FIR by invoking constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court---Held: Allegations against the petitioners were that they being coordinator and servant of a registered company while being hand in glove with each other prepared fake and fictitious rent deed and wrongfully obtained possession of the company's outlets along with wrongful dispossession of the servants of the company, thus cheated the company---When the company was a registered one and completely came within the four corners of Companies Act, 2017 ('the Act') the best course for the company was to move a complaint as required under S. 477 of the Act and not to move an application before the SHO for registration of a criminal case against the petitioners---When the law provides a mechanism for doing a thing in a particular manner, then it must be done in that way and not otherwise---Section 476 of Companies Act, 2017, provides cognizance to be taken in the case of registered companies while S. 477 provided the way of making a complaint for such offences whereas S. 497 provides the penalty /punishment for the offences committed---Section 476 of the Companies Act, being non obstante clause which excludes other provisions of the general law and full mechanism has been provided while taking the cognizance as provided under S. 497 of the Act, which is also a scheduled offence, provided in Eighth Schedule of the Act---Thus, the contents of FIR fully constituted an offence under S. 497 of the Companies Act, hence, lodging of the FIR by the local police was without any competence and was patently illegal on the face of record---Constitutional petition was allowed, accordingly. Syed Mushahid Shah and others v. Federal Investigating Agency and others 2017 SCMR 1218; 2013 SCMR 85 and FIA through Director General FIA and others v. Syed Hamid Ali Shah and others PLD 2023 SC 265 rel. (b) Interpretation of statutes--- ----General and special law---Applicability---Wherever there is a special and general law applicable to a certain matter, the special law will prevail. Muhammad Iqbal others v. Nasrullah 2023 SCMR 273 and Safi-ud-Din Kazi v. Pranab Chandra Roy Choudhary PLD 1950 Dacca 37 rel. Waheed Jan Muhammad for Petitioner. Shoaib Ali, Assistant Advocate General for the State. Malik Asif Ali for Respondent No.2. Date of hearing: 12th February, 2025.

Summary: (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 409, 420, 468, 471 & 109----Criminal breach of trust by public servant, cheating and dishonestly inducing someone to deliver property, forgery for the purpose of cheating, use of a forged document as genuine, abetment---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Prosecution case was that the co-accused in connivance with the appellant committed fraud with the bank and willfully and intentionally withdrew an amount of Rs. 1,050,000/- from the bank account through fake/bogus cheques---Perusal of record revealed that neither in the application addressed to Deputy Director FIA nor in his statement the complainant had mentioned that it was the appellant who had committed fraud with the bank by using forged and bogus cheque books---In both these documents the complainant stated that co-accused had encashed one cheque amounting to Rs.6,40,000/- and transferred an amount of Rs.3,65,000/- through second cheque in the account of appellant---Said amount might have been transferred in the account of appellant but the prosecution had failed to bring on record any iota of evidence showing that he was in active connivance with the co-accused, who had withdrawn the cash amount from the bank and transferred some of the amount in the account of appellant---Not only the complainant had failed even to name the appellant that he had committed the offence but even General Banking Officer also never ever named the appellant to have committed the offence--- Thus, the essential ingredients of the offences were found missing in the case as neither the appellant was found to have committed breach of trust or forgery/cheating or using a forged document as genuine nor he had taken benefit of such cheques himself but as per evidence adduced at the trial the active role of using the cheques in question and taking benefit thereof had been attributed to absconding co-accused---Although the prosecution had levelled serious allegations against the appellant that he had withdrawn huge amount from the account of "QI", however, interestingly when said "QI" appeared before the Court, he stated to have neither known the appellant nor charged him for any offence---Besides, the record available on the file was totally silent about the fact that how and who prepared the disputed cheques and in what manner the same was used for the purpose of cheating in order to constitute offence under S.468/471, P.P.C---Moreover, the prosecution had also badly failed to prove the element of mens rea, actus reus and theoutcome of the offence, which were the essential requirement of law for bringing the charge home against the appellant---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Bashir Dawood and 2 others v. Tanveer Ahmad and another 2020 PCr.LJ 1230; Syed Fayyaz Hussain Zaidi, Advocate v. SHO Police Station Chehliyak Multan and another 2004 MLD 1403; Abdul Rasheed Nasir and others v. The State 2009 SCMR 517; Syed Hamid Saeed Kazmi and others v. The State 2017 PCr.LJ 854 and Nasir Abbas v. The State 2011 SCMR 1966 rel. (b) Criminal trial--- ----Benefit of doubt---Principle---Single reasonable doubt is sufficient for the acquittal of accused. 1997 SCMR 449; 2007 SCMR 1825 and Muhammad Akram v. The State 2009 SCMR 230 rel. Nadeem Abbas Waseer for Appellant Noman Malik, Deputy Attorney General and (Branch Manager MCB) By none for the Respondents. Date of hearing: 11th February, 2025.

Summary: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----S. 497(1), third proviso---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 409, 419 & 420---Criminal breach of trust by a public servant, banker, merchant, or agent, cheating by personation, cheating and dishonestly inducing the delivery of property---Bail, grant of---Statutory ground of delay in conclusion of trial---Accused was charged for the offences mentioned above---In the instant case, the Sections of law applied against the accused petitioner did not carry death penalty coupled with the fact that trial of the accused petitioner had not even commenced what to say of its completion---Thus, the case of petitioner was covered under para (a) to 3rd proviso to S.497(1),Cr.P.C.---Bail under 3rd proviso to S.497 (1),Cr.P.C., could be refused to an accused by the Court only on two grounds i.e. one mentioned in 3rd proviso itself that the delay in the trial of the accused had been occasioned by an act or omission of the accused or any other person acting on his behalf and the second mentioned in 4th proviso that the accused was a previously convicted offender for an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life or to a person who in the opinion of the Court was a hardened, desperate or dangerous criminal or was accused of an act of terrorism punishable with death or imprisonment for life---Nothing had been brought on record that the delay in conclusion of trial had been occasioned on part of the accused petitioner or any other person acting on his behalf or that he was an offender covered by the 4th proviso to S.497 (1),Cr.P.C, thus he was entitled to be released on bail---Bail petition was allowed, in circumstances. Shakeel Shah v. The State and others 2022 SCMR 1 rel. Aman Ullah Pirzada for Petitioner. Hazrat Said, D.A.G. for the State. Arbab Shabbir Ahmad for the Complainant. Date of hearing: 16th August, 2024.

Summary: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----S. 497(1), third proviso---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 419 & 420---Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXXI of 2019 ), S.9(D)---Cheating by personation, cheating and dishonestly inducing the delivery of property, possession of narcotic substances---Bail, grant of---Statutory ground of delay in conclusion of trial---Allegation against the petitioner was that 14400 grams charas was recovered from a vehicle driven by accused-petitioner---Record/order sheets of the Trial Court would transpire that on majority of the dates, the witnesses were not present, on some dates, the Presiding Officer was on leave while on other dates, the local Bar was on strike---Though, there were two adjournments on part of the defence i.e. 13.2.2023 and 01.2.2024 when the witnesses were present but counsel for accused was not available, however, keeping in view adjournments on majority of the dates on part of the prosecution, the delay could not be solely attributed to accused---Delay on part of the defence pertaining to those two days came to be about 24/25 days whereas the accused petitioner was behind the bars for the last 02 years and 03 months and his trial had not been concluded so far---If the proceedings before the Trial Court continued in such leisurely manner, it might take another year to conclude the trial---Third proviso to S.497(1),Cr.P.C., said that if an accused was charged of an offence punishable with death who had been detained for such offence for a continuous period exceeding two years and whose trial for such offence had not been concluded he had a statutory right to be released on bail---If the delay occurred because of the two adjournments on part of the defence was excluded, still the case of accused petitioner was ripe for consideration under para (b) to 3rd proviso to S.497 (1),Cr.P.C., as the statutory period of two years was to be reckoned from the date of arrest of an accused person and not from the date when the charge was framed---Nothing had been brought on record that the delay in conclusion of trial had been occasioned solely on part of the accused petitioner or any other person acting on his behalf or that he was an offender covered by the 4th proviso to S.497 (1),Cr.P.C., thus he was entitled to be released on bail---Bail petition was allowed, in circumstances. Nadeem Samson v. The State and others PLD 2022 SC 112 and Shakeel Shah v. The State and others 2022 SCMR 1 rel. Shabbir Hussain Gigyani for Applicant. Amir Zeb, A.A.G for the State. Date of hearing: 7th June, 2024.

Summary: Background: The petitioner, served as Assistant Education Officer in the Education Department and was arrested on 19.05.2010 on charges including forgery and corruption under various sections of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC) and the Ehtesab Bureau Act, 2001. He was granted bail on 15.06.2010 by the Ehtesab Court No.1, Muzaffarabad. After his release, he sought readjustment in his job, presenting a judgment allegedly acquitting him, which was later found to be bogus. A reference was then filed against him for forgery and corruption. The petitioner sought dismissal of this reference under section 265-K, Cr.P.C., but his application was rejected by the Ehtesab Court and the High Court. However, this Court quashed the reference on procedural grounds, specifically that it was not filed by the competent authority. Despite this, the Ehtesab Bureau issued new notices to the petitioner on 07.04.2019 and 19.04.2019, prompting him to file a writ petition for quashing these letters, which was dismissed by the High Court, leading to this petition for leave to appeal. ----Issues: 1- Whether the Ehtesab Bureau's new notices to the petitioner violate the previous judgment of this Court. 2- Whether the Ehtesab Bureau has the authority to re-investigate the matter after the previous reference was quashed on procedural grounds. 3- Whether the High Court erred in dismissing the writ petition without considering the specific legal points raised by the petitioner. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir granted leave to appeal, recognizing that important legal propositions of public importance were involved. The Court acknowledged that the arguments of the petitioner's counsel were partially supported by the record and that further examination of these issues was warranted. Specifically, the Court will examine: The validity of the Ehtesab Bureau's actions in issuing new notices in light of the previous judgment. The procedural and substantive authority of the Ehtesab Bureau to re-initiate proceedings against the petitioner. The High Court's handling of the writ petition and whether it appropriately addressed the legal arguments presented. ----Citations/Precedents: Sections 109, 409, 471, 419, 420, 467, and 468 of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC) Section 11 of the Ehtesab Bureau Act, 2001 Section 265-K, Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) The Court's decision to grant leave to appeal emphasizes the need for a thorough review of the legal and procedural aspects of the case to ensure justice and adherence to legal standards.

Summary: Bail denied----Background: The petitioner was accused of obtaining an appointment and subsequent promotion using a doubtful M.A. Political Science degree. Complainants, who were employees of the Educational Board Mirpur, alleged that the degree was bogus. The Ehtesab Bureau investigated and found the degree to be fraudulent. The trial court convicted him and sentenced him to 7 years of simple imprisonment for each offense and ordered the recovery of Rs. 19,43,119/-. The High Court upheld the trial court’s decision, leading to this petition for leave to appeal. ----Issues: 1- Whether the petitioner’s degree from the University of Sindh Jamshoro is genuine. 2- Whether the trial court and High Court overlooked critical aspects and evidence of the case. 3- Whether the conviction and the sentence were lawful and appropriate. 4- Whether the petitioner should be granted bail pending the final disposal of the case. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir granted leave to appeal, recognizing that important legal propositions requiring detailed deliberation were involved. Specifically, the Court will examine: The authenticity of the petitioner’s degree, especially in light of the documents provided by the petitioner that purportedly verify the degree as genuine. Whether the trial court and High Court appropriately considered all evidence and aspects of the case. The legality and appropriateness of the conviction and sentence handed down by the lower courts. Regarding the application for bail, the Court observed that no sufficient grounds existed to grant bail to the petitioner at this stage. However, the Court directed the office to expedite the preparation of the case file for final disposal. ----Citations/Precedents: Sections 419, 420, 468, 471 of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC) Sections 10 and 11 of the Ehtesab Bureau Act, 2001 The Court's decision to grant leave to appeal ensures a comprehensive review of the legal and factual issues surrounding the petitioner’s conviction and the authenticity of his degree, while denying bail to ensure the integrity of the ongoing judicial process.