Loading... Account
Dark Mode
Step 1 of 8

Welcome!

Let's learn how to use the search features effectively.
Step 1 of 7

Welcome!

Let's learn how to use the search features effectively.

Search Results: Categories: Article 19-A (1 found)

Agha Intesar Yunus VS FIA etc

Citation: Pending

Case No: Writ Petition-2526-2025

Judgment Date: 23-Jul-25

Jurisdiction: Islamabad High Court

Judge: Justice Muhammad Azam Khan

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.

Disclaimer: AI/GPT is not a substitute for legal advice. The content on this website is for research only. In case of breach of T.O.S, PLDB reserves the right to revoke or ban membership at any time without notice. Pak Legal Database ® 2023-2026. All Rights Reserved. Version 4.05.2a. Designed & developed by theblinklabs.com

error: Content Protection Enabled
Scroll to Top