Summary: (Against the orders dated 24.06.2025 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore passed in Criminal Miscellaneous Nos. 2147-B, 2149-B, 2150-B, 2151-B, 2153-B of 2025, 2155-B, 2152-B and 2148-B of 2025). Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----S. 497---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 320, 324, 337-A, 337-F, 337-L , 353, 354, 395, 436, 506-B, 120-B, 121, 121-A, 188 & 201---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to Qatl-i-amd, shajjah, ghayr-jaifah, other hurt, assault or use of criminal force to deter public servant, outraging modesty of woman, dacoity, criminal intimidation, damage to property, criminal conspiracy, waging war, disobedience of order by public servant and causing disappearance of evidence---Bail, grant of---Principle of consistency---Applicability---Plea raised by accused was that co-accused persons had already been released on bail---Validity---Material brought on record regarding alleged criminal conspiracy attributed to accused required further scrutiny and the same would be best adjudged after recording pro and contra evidence during trial---In view of the principle of consistency, other similarly placed accused persons were granted bail by Supreme Court---Bail was allowed. Salman Safdar, Advocate Supreme Court and Jawaid Masood Tahir Bhatti, Advocate-on-Record assisted by Mazhar Ali Haider, Advocate for Petitioner (in all cases). Syed Zulfiqar Abbas Naqvi, Special Prosecutor, Punjab assisted by Mudassar Hussain Malik, Advocate Supreme Court, Dr. Javaid Asif, DSP, Mumtaz Kakar, Inspector, Afzal Sandhu, Inspector, M. Ashraf, Inspector and Alam Langrial, Inspector for the State (in all cases). Ahmed Raza Gillani, Additional Prosecutor General, Punjab on Court's call. Date of hearing: 21st August, 2025. ORDER YAHYA AFRIDI, CJ.--- Through these petitions, Imran Ahmad Khan Niazi (the "petitioner") has sought leave to appeal against the orders dated 24.06.2025 passed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore in Crl. Misc. Nos. 2147-B, 2149-B, 2150-B, 2151-B, 2153-B, 2155-B, 2152- B and 2148-B of 2025, whereby post-arrest bail was refused to him in case FIR Nos. 852, 768, 1570, 103, 109, 1271, 108 and 96 registered at different Police Stations Race Course, Shadman, Mughalpura, Sarwar Road and Gulberg of District Lahore on 10.05.2023, 11.05.2023, 12.05.2023 and 13.05.2023 ('FIRs') in respect of offences under sections 302, 324, 395, 436, 452, 440, 427, 353, 354, 391, 186, 290, 291, 153, 152, 148, 149, 147, 109, 505, 506-B, 120, 120-B, 225-B, 337-F(i), 337-L(2), 337-A(i), 337-F(v), 337-A(iii), 336, 449, 153-A, 153-B, 146, 131, 121-A, 121, 188, 201 and 34 P.P.C. read with section 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, section 16 of the Punjab Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance, 1960 and section 11-B of Arms Ordinance, 1965. 2. We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties. 3. The main thrust of the prosecution revolves around the allegation that the petitioner hatched a conspiracy for the commission of the offences mentioned in the FIRs. To this end, the learned Special Prosecutor drew the attention of the Court to the ocular statements of three witnesses, as well as electronic media, and argued that these clearly implicate the petitioner and connect him with the commission of the alleged offences. 4. When confronted with the grant of bail rendered by this Court to Mr. Ejaz Ahmad Chaudhary, Mr. Imtiaz Mehmood, and Mr. Hafiz Farhat Abbas, who were linked to the same occurrence and charged similarly to the present petitioner, the learned Special Prosecutor responded that the case of the present petitioner was clearly distinguishable and, therefore, the principle of consistency would not apply in the instant bail matters. 5. Further, when the learned Special Prosecutor was confronted with the definite findings regarding the merits of the case recorded in the impugned order refusing bail to the present petitioner, he explained that it is by now settled that the findings so recorded in a bail granting order are tentative in nature, to be restricted only to the proceedings of bail and are not considered during the trial of an accused. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner, in rebuttal, vehemently opposed the contentions raised by the learned Special Prosecutor. In particular, he emphasized that the principle of consistency had to be applied in favour of the petitioner, as all three accused, namely, Ejaz Ahmad Chaudhary, Imtiaz Mahmood, and Hafiz Farhat Abbas, were charged with alleged criminal conspiracy, and thus the case of the petitioner would surely fall within the domain of parity, which had to be positively considered in favour of the present petitioner. He further explained that the cases of the present petitioner were on a better footing, in particular, than that of Ejaz Ahmad Chaudhary, who had been granted bail by this Court. He pointed out that in the case of Ejaz Ahmad Chaudhry, the investigation had been completed and the trial had commenced, whereas in the case of the present petitioner those stages had not yet been reached, and thus, his entitlement to bail is comparatively stronger. 7. This Court has noted that the definite findings recorded by the learned High Court in the impugned order, which go to the very root of the contested claims of the parties. However, without passing any findings on the legality and veracity of the said findings, our concern at this stage is confined only to the fact that such findings have been recorded at the stage of bail. 8. Let this Court pass any findings on the merits of the case which may prejudice either party at trial, it is sufficient to state that the material brought on record regarding the alleged criminal conspiracy attributed to the petitioner requires scrutiny, and the same would be best adjudged after recording pro and contra evidence during the trial. In addition thereto, the case of the petitioner has to be positively considered in view of the principle of consistency, as others similarly placed have been granted bail by this Court. 9. In view of the above, these petitions are converted into appeals and allowed. The petitioner is granted post-arrest bail in the above mentioned cases, subject to his furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs.100,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court in each case. MH/I-14/SC Bail allowed.

Summary: (a) Constitution of Pakistan ---Art. 15, 199, and Rule 22 of the Passports Rules, 2021 Right to freedom of movement—Placement of citizen’s name on Passport Control List (PCL)—Legality—Due process—Requirement of Federal Government’s approval The Petitioner challenged the placement of his name on the Passport Control List (PCL) under Article 199 of the Constitution, contending that the restriction was arbitrary, unlawful, and a violation of his fundamental rights. The Petitioner was accused in FIR No. 96/23 under various sections of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, and the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997. However, his pre-arrest bail petition was withdrawn after the investigating officer found him not guilty. Despite this, his name remained on the PCL based on the recommendation of the Home Department, Punjab, without any prior notice or opportunity for a hearing. Rule 22 of the Passports Rules, 2021, requires approval from the Federal Government for placing an individual on the PCL, which was absent in the present case. The court held that such a restriction, in the absence of lawful authority and procedural fairness, violated Article 15 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to free movement subject to reasonable restrictions imposed by law. Therefore, the placement of the Petitioner’s name on the PCL was declared illegal, unconstitutional, and of no legal effect. Cited Cases: Dr. Joseph Wilson v. Federation of Pakistan 2017 PCrLJ 1569 Dr. Shireen M. Mazari v. Federation of Pakistan 2024 MLD 1020 Rasikh Ellahi v. Federation of Pakistan 2024 YLR 2616 Messrs Mustafa Impex, Karachi v. Government of Pakistan PLD 2016 SC 808 Farah Mazhar v. Federation of Pakistan PLD 2022 Lahore 119 ----- Disposition: Writ petition allowed—Respondents directed to remove Petitioner’s name from PCL, as its inclusion was found to be unjustified, illegal, and violative of constitutional rights.

Summary: (Against the judgment dated 31.05.2019, passed by the Peshawar High Court, Peshawar in Criminal Appeal No. 283-P of 2019). Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----S. 121-A---Frontier Crimes Regulations (III of 1901) [since repealed], Reglns. 11 & 40---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 247---Waging war, conspiracy of---Right of appeal---Scope---Constitutional amendment---Retrospective effect---Accused assailed his conviction and sentence awarded by Trial Court whereby he was sentenced to 14 years of imprisonment---Validity---Where a particular statute/law provides a self-contained mechanism and well defined forum of redressal for determination of questions of law or facts by way of an appeal or revision to another authority or tribunal as the case may be, the same has to be followed being remedy provided under law---Accused without exhausting such remedies can be allowed to invoke Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court---Such jurisdiction of High Court cannot be exploited as the sole solution when there are equally effective and adequate alternative remedies provided under law---Such remedies cannot be bypassed to invoke Constitutional jurisdiction---Retrospective effect cannot be given to a Constitutional amendment, without any such intention by Legislature, otherwise matters decided prior to Constitutional amendment would also need to be reviewed by Constitutional Courts and it would open flood gates to any case---In the present case, provision of Article 247 of the Constitution was in field and jurisdiction of High Court was barred in matters exclusively dealt with by FATA hierarchy---Supreme Court declined to interfere in conviction and sentence awarded to accused as the judgment passed by Trial Court had attained finality---Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed and leave to appeal was refused. Mian Muhammad Yousaf and another v. Lahore Development Authority through Director-General, L.D.A. Plaza, Lahore and 5 others PLD 2001 SC 393; Syed Match Company Ltd. through Managing Director v. Authority Under Payment of Wages Act and others 2003 SCMR 1493; Mian Azam Waheed and 2 others v. The Collector of Customs through Additional Collector of Customs, Karachi 2023 SCMR 1247; Jameel Qadir and another v. Government of Baluchistan, Local Government, Rural Development and Agrovilles Department, Quetta through Secretary and others 2023 SCMR 1919 and Muhammad Safeer and others v. Muhammad Azam and others PLD 2024 SC 838 ref. Muhammad Usman Mirza, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner. Altaf Khan, Additional Advocate General, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa for the State. Date of hearing: 20th September, 2024.

Summary: Who can be complainant in case under section 121, 121-A, 124-A 131 and 153 PPC. Principle laid down -----------Issues: 1)Whether the FIR against Captain (Rtd) Muhammad Safdar was legally valid given the requirements of ---Section 196 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. ----2)Whether the allegations in the FIR constituted an offence under the PPC. ----3)Whether there was evidence of mala fide intent in registering the FIR without forensic verification of the video evidence. ---4)Whether the petitioner’s actions constituted waging war against the state or instigating mutiny. -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The court held that per Section 196 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, the complainant was not competent to lodge the FIR without the authorization of the Federal or Provincial Government. No such authorization was produced, rendering the FIR legally invalid. The court found no material evidence that the petitioner’s actions met the legal criteria for the alleged offences. Criticism of government policies by a politician does not equate to waging war against the country. The court noted the lack of forensic verification of the video evidence as indicative of mala fide intent, further invalidating the FIR. The allegations did not constitute waging war against the state or instigating mutiny, as no concrete evidence, such as pamphlets, literature, or arms, was presented. Consequently, W.P. No. 2843-P of 2021 was allowed, and the FIR was quashed. Cr.M.(B.B.A.) No. 809-A of 2021 became infructuous and was dismissed. W.P. No. 1297-P of 2021 was disposed of with directions to the respondents to provide case details to the petitioner upon request. ----Citations/Precedents: Section 196 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. Sections 121, 121-A, 124-A, 131, 153, 505, and 511 of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC).