Summary: (a) Pakistan Penal Code (XLV of 1860) ----Ss. 302(b), 324, 148, 149 & 109---Murder---Attempt to murder---Rioting with deadly weapons---Common intention---Broad daylight occurrence---Identification---Where parties were known to each other and incident occurred in daylight, question of misidentification ruled out---Ocular account of complainant and eye-witnesses found confidence-inspiring and fully corroborated by medical evidence---Single fatal firearm injury attributed specifically to petitioner---Prosecution version proved beyond reasonable doubt qua occurrence and role of petitioner. (b) Motive ----Proof---Failure to establish---Effect---Alleged motive based on prior altercation not proved---No contemporaneous complaint of alleged morning scuffle---No independent witness examined to support motive---Prosecution failed to prove motive satisfactorily---Non-proof of motive held not fatal to conviction where ocular and medical evidence are reliable, but relevant for determination of sentence. (c) Recovery of weapon ----Delayed recovery---Evidentiary value---Pistol allegedly recovered after long lapse of time during which accused remained proclaimed offender---Forensic report only confirmed mechanical fitness of weapon and did not link crime empties with recovered pistol---Recovery rightly disbelieved---Benefit extended to accused on this aspect. (d) Sentence ----Capital punishment---Conversion to life imprisonment---Principles---Where motive not proved and recovery of weapon doubtful---Single shot fired without repetition---Consistent judicial view that in absence of proved motive, sentence of death ordinarily not warranted---Life imprisonment appropriate punishment---High Court justified in commuting death sentence to imprisonment for life. (e) Criminal jurisprudence ----Parity of sentence---Co-accused---Argument of equal treatment rejected---Co-accused convicted for causing injuries only, whereas petitioner assigned specific role of causing fatal injury---Cases not identical---No question of further reduction of sentence on ground of parity. Cited cases: • Bashir-ud-Din and others v. The State, 2025 SCMR 1380 • Muhammad Bilal v. The State, 2025 SCMR 1580 • Nawab Ali v. The State, 2019 SCMR 2009 • Mst. Nazia Anwar v. The State and others, 2018 SCMR 911 • Arshad Beq v. The State, 2017 SCMR 1727 • Allah Wasaya and another v. The State, 2017 SCMR 1797 • Mazhar Abbas alias Baddi v. The State, 2017 SCMR 1884 • Ghulam Muhammad and another v. The State and another, 2017 SCMR 2048 Disposition: Jail Petition No.6 of 2018 dismissed; leave to appeal refused; judgment of Lahore High Court dated 30.11.2017 upheld; conviction under section 302(b), PPC maintained; sentence of imprisonment for life, compensation under section 544-A, Cr.P.C., benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C., and sentence in default confirmed.

Summary: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302, 324, 109, 148 & 149---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 204---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, abetment, rioting armed with deadly weapon, unlawful assembly---Application for summoning the respondents/accused to face trial in case FIR---Scope---Complainant got lodged FIR in respect of offences under Ss.302, 324, 109, 148 & 149, P.P.C, and after the conclusion of the investigation, the respondents Nos. 3 to 5 were declared as not involved in the case and in report under S. 173, Cr.P.C their names were placed in Column No. 2---After the Trial Court had taken cognizance of the case, the petitioner moved an application seeking the summoning of said respondents to face the trial, but same was dismissed---Validity---Record showed that the respondents Nos. 3 to 5 were not only named in the FIR as accused but were also named as accused in the statements of the witnesses recorded under S.161, Cr.P.C---Though the Investigating Officers of the case had declared the said respondents not involved in the incident at all, however, the said opinions of the Investigating Officers of the case were not even relevant to be considered while adjudicating upon the application of the petitioner seeking summoning of the said respondents to face the trial of the case, as the question of the summoning was to be decided within the parameters of S.204, Cr.P.C---In this particular case, it was obvious that there was evidentiary material in the shape of not only the FIR but also the statements of the witnesses recorded under S.161, Cr.P.C to proceed with the trial of the said respondents---Moreover, the trial Court, while passing the order dated 25.08.2025, only referred to the result of the investigation as conducted by one of the Investigating Officers of the case, however, did not at all advert to the statements of the witnesses recorded during the investigation of the case, wherein the said respondents were duly implicated---Trial Court can summon any accused whose name has been placed in column No.2 of the report under S.173, Cr.P.C, to face the trial of the case before recording of any evidence when there is sufficient material available against them and there is no bar whatsoever in that regard placed on the Trial Court---Moreover, the accused having been declared by the Investigating Officer not to be involved in the case should not be made a consideration while adjudicating upon the application under S.204, Cr.P.C for the simple reason that the opinion of the Investigating Officer of the case was not only irrelevant but also not admissible in evidence---In said circumstances, petition was allowed and the Trial Court was directed to summon the respondents Nos. 3 to 5 to face the trial of the case. Safdar Ali v. Zafar Iqbal and others 2002 SCMR 63; Waqar-ul-Haq alias Nithoo and another v. The State 1988 SCMR 1428; Sher Muhammad Umar and others v. The State PLD 2012 SC 179 and Falak Sher and another v. The State PLD 1967 SC 425 rel. Ch. Mussadiq Munir for Petitioner. Ch. Sarfraz Noor Meo for Respondents Nos. 3 to 5. Zafar Iqbal Somro, Deputy District Public Prosecutor for the State. Date of hearing: 16th October, 2025.

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) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----S. 497(2)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302, 324, 452, 436, 109, 148 & 149---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, house-trespass after preparation for hurt, assault or wrongful restraint, mischief by fire or explosive substance with the intent to destroy a building, abetment, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly---Bail, grant of---Further inquiry---Petitioner was nominated in the FIR with specific role of causing firearm injury below the right chest of deceased---During the course of investigation, the petitioner claimed a specific plea that he only tried to rescue the children and had not participated in the occurrence---Said version of the petitioner was also verified by the Investigating Officer in its findings incorporated in daily case diary, leading to the conclusion that the petitioner did not participate in the crime, therefore, the petitioner's case became one requiring further inquiry into his alleged guilt---Furthermore, considering the outcome of the investigations, the petitioner's case presented two conflicting versions; one stated by the complainant in the FIR and the other revealed by the Investigating Officer---Which version was correct was a matter to be determined by the Trial Court after recording the evidence---Apart from the above, the crime empties which were secured from the crime scene were found shot from one crime weapon which did not belong to the petitioner---Principal perpetrator of the crime committed suicide at the crime scene---Nothing was recovered upon the disclosure of the petitioner---Investigation had been completed and the petitioner was no more required for the purpose of any further investigation---Petitioner was arrested on 18.05.2025 and had been in custody since, without significant progress in the trial---In such state of affairs, the case of the petitioner fell within the ambit of subsection (2) of S.497 of Cr.P.C. calling for further inquiry into his guilt---Petitioner was behind the bars and was no more required for further investigation---Bail petition was allowed, in circumstances. Ehsan Ullah v. The State 2012 SCMR 1137; Saif Ullah v. The State and others 2019 SCMR 1458; Najeeb Ullah v. The State and another 2020 SCMR 1241 and Muhammad Ramzan v. The State and others 2021 SCMR 1914 rel. (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----S. 497---Bail order---Observations of the Court---Scope---Observations made in the bail order are tentative in nature and shall not influence the Trial Court. Barrister Danyal Ijaz Chadhar for Petitioner. Fakhar Abbas, Deputy Prosecutor General for the State with Naveed S.I.

Summary: (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860) ----S. 302(b), 148, 149, 109—Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 342—Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, Art. 129(g)—Murder trial—Unreliable ocular account—Benefit of doubt. For one deceased, ten persons were implicated, including eight as direct participants and two for abetment. Wide-net implication and acquittal of all co-accused except petitioner reflected exaggeration and mala fide. The complainant’s own son, alleged motive witness, was withheld; motive thus remained unproved. Recovery of pistol was inconsequential as empties did not match in PFSA report. The Court held that where motive and recovery are disbelieved, conviction cannot rest solely on uncorroborated ocular account—particularly when co-accused sharing same evidence stand acquitted. Akhtar Ali v. State (2008 SCMR 6), Muhammad Pervaiz v. State (PLD 2019 SC 592), Liaqat Ali v. State (2021 SCMR 455) and Shaukat Hussain v. State (2024 SCMR 929) followed. (b) Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 ----Arts. 71 & 129(g)—Chance witnesses—Burden to explain presence—Failure to produce local witnesses. Occurrence took place near a graveyard in a different village (Mandi Bhattian); complainant and his witnesses were residents of Mandi Jattan. They claimed attendance at a funeral to justify presence but produced no local or family member of deceased Fazal Karim to confirm attendance. Their uncorroborated claim rendered them “chance witnesses.” Chance witnesses must establish presence through convincing evidence; mere assertion is insufficient. Mst. Sughra Begum v. Qaiser Pervez (2015 SCMR 1142) and Muhammad Irshad v. Allah Ditta (2017 SCMR 142) relied upon. (c) Medical evidence—Contradiction with ocular account—Effect. Ocular witnesses alleged entry wounds on back and thigh, but medical evidence showed both as exit wounds. Such contradiction undermined ocular account’s reliability. Bashir Muhammad Khan v. State (2022 SCMR 986), Tajamal Hussain Shah v. State (2022 SCMR 1567) and Mansab Ali v. State (2019 SCMR 1306) applied. (d) Motive—Failure to prove—Conduct inconsistent with alleged grudge. Motive alleged that complainant’s son had previously shot the petitioner; thus complainant should have been target. Yet he, though present, remained unhurt, while unrelated deceased was killed. This incongruity further discredited prosecution story. Muhammad Zaman Mangat v. Muhammad Akhtar (2004 SCMR 757), Saleem Khan v. State (2021 SCMR 1472) and Rohtas Khan v. State (2010 SCMR 566) followed. (e) Acquitted co-accused—No independent corroboration—Same evidence rule. Two co-accused (Khalid Hussain and Farzand Ali) attributed specific firearm injuries corresponding to post-mortem injuries but were acquitted; no appeal was filed, and acquittal attained finality. With no independent corroboration against petitioner, same disbelieved evidence could not sustain conviction. (f) Criminal jurisprudence—Principle of benefit of doubt—Reiterated. If a single circumstance creates reasonable doubt, the accused must be acquitted; here, several infirmities—disbelieved motive, doubtful presence, medical inconsistency, and acquittal of co-accused—rendered prosecution case unreliable. Tariq Pervez v. State (1995 SCMR 1345) and Muhammad Akram v. State (2009 SCMR 230) followed. Disposition: Petition converted into appeal and allowed—Judgments of High Court (20-09-2017) and Trial Court (30-01-2014) set aside—Iftikhar Ahmad alias Meena acquitted of charge on benefit of doubt—To be released forthwith unless required in any other case. ChatGPT can make mistakes. Check important info.

Summary: Acquittal --- (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860) ---- Ss. 302, 109 & 34 ---- Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss. 6 & 7 ---- Sindh Arms Act (V of 2013), Ss. 23(i)A, 24 & 25 ---- Murder—Allegation of abetment—Evidence—Standard of proof—Benefit of doubt—Scope. Prosecution alleged that appellant Sikandar Ali Lashari (then District & Sessions Judge) hired assassins to murder Aqib Hussain, son of another Sessions Judge, on account of the deceased’s alleged relationship with his daughter. Held, prosecution failed to establish the alleged conspiracy or abetment through any admissible or credible evidence. The alleged Call Data Record (CDR) of SIMs was neither issued in the name of the appellant nor proved in accordance with law—being photocopies, unverified by the concerned company, and produced without permission to tender secondary evidence. No CDR of the appellant’s own SIM, nor any recording or transcript of conversation with alleged hired assassins, was produced. Alleged messages between the deceased and the appellant’s daughter were not proved through forensic or company evidence; mobile phones were never seized or examined. Extra-judicial confession made by the appellant while in police custody was inadmissible. Recovery of pistols was from the house of an absconding co-accused, not from premises owned or possessed by the appellant; hence of no evidentiary value. No witness of conspiracy or abetment was produced. Motive was introduced belatedly and remained unproved. Prosecution thus failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Cited Cases: • Azeem Khan v. Mujahid Khan (2016 SCMR 274) • Rehmatullah v. The State (2024 SCMR 1782) • Khalid Perviz v. The State (2021 SCMR 522) (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860) ---- S. 302 ---- Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 537 ---- Criminal trial—Identification of accused—Defective identification parade—Value of evidence. Appellant Muhammad Irfan Khan @ Faheem was charged as one of the unidentified assailants. No description of the culprits regarding age, height or complexion was provided in the FIR. Identification parade held in court premises was unsafe, as it was not shown that the appellant’s face was covered or that witnesses had no prior opportunity to see him. Such identification, being tainted with doubt, carried no evidentiary value. Cited Cases: • State through Advocate-General Sindh v. Sobharo (1993 SCMR 585) • Sabir Ali alias Fauji v. The State (2011 SCMR 563) (c) Evidence Act (I of 1872) ---- Arts. 38, 40, 71 & 91 ---- Evidence—Call Data Records—Messages—Extra-judicial confession—Recovery—Evidentiary value. Photocopies of CDRs, produced without certification or testimony from service providers, were inadmissible; no proof of ownership or authenticity was provided. Messages relied upon were not proved by any competent witness. Extra-judicial confession made in police custody was inadmissible. Recovery of pistols from house of absconding accused could not be used against appellant Sikandar Ali Lashari, as possession was not proved. (d) Criminal trial ---- Benefit of doubt ---- Principle—Single circumstance sufficient—Application of settled law. Where a single circumstance raises reasonable doubt, the accused is entitled to acquittal. Instant case was riddled with multiple infirmities including unproved motive, inadmissible documentary evidence, lack of independent corroboration, and doubtful identification; therefore, benefit of doubt was extended. Cited Cases: • Tariq Pervez v. The State (1995 SCMR 1345) • Muhammad Akram v. The State (2009 SCMR 230) Disposition: Appeals allowed. Convictions and sentences awarded by the Anti-Terrorism Court, Karachi (29.09.2018), and affirmed by the High Court of Sindh (20.04.2020), were set aside. Appellants Sikandar Ali Lashari and Muhammad Irfan Khan @ Faheem were acquitted of all charges and ordered to be released forthwith unless required in any other case.

Summary: Acquittal ---- (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860) ---- Ss. 302(b), 109, 148 & 149 ---- Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss. 154 & 382-B ---- Murder—Appreciation of evidence—Delay in lodging FIR—Effect—Benefit of doubt. Occurrence took place at 4:30 p.m., but FIR was lodged at 8:30 p.m., despite police presence at the Rural Health Centre where injured deceased was examined at 6:30 p.m. Delay of four hours held unexplained and indicative of deliberation and consultation. Such delay, when the police was available and eyewitnesses admitted informing them earlier, cast serious doubt on the spontaneity and truthfulness of prosecution version. Held, unexplained delay in lodging FIR undermines credibility of ocular account. Cited Cases: • State through Advocate General Sindh v. Farman Hussain and others (PLD 1995 SC 1) • Mehmood Ahmed & others v. The State and another (1995 SCMR 127) • Shaukat Hussain v. The State through PG Punjab and another (2024 SCMR 929) (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860) ---- S. 302(b) ---- Ocular account—Chance witnesses—Presence at scene of occurrence—Effect. Complainant and alleged eyewitnesses were residents of another village and failed to furnish plausible reason for their presence at the scene situated in different village. Their presence, therefore, held doubtful. Evidence of chance witnesses without independent corroboration not relied upon. Cited Cases: • Mst. Sughra Begum and another v. Qaiser Pervez and others (2015 SCMR 1142) • Muhammad Irshad v. Allah Ditta and others (2017 SCMR 142) (c) Evidence Act (I of 1872) ---- Arts. 71 & 129(g) ---- Contradictions in ocular testimony—Material improvements—Adverse inference for withholding best evidence. Witnesses contradicted the FIR regarding seat of injuries—attributing right leg injury in FIR but left leg injury in deposition—creating inconsistency in prosecution version. Weapon description varied between 12-bore gun, rifle, and pump action, yet no matching empties recovered. Forensic report (PFSA) found insufficient data to link recovered weapons with crime empties. Prosecution also failed to produce best evidence to prove motive, namely, the brother of the deceased and his alleged wife (daughter of accused), or their Nikah-nama. Held, withholding best evidence justified adverse inference under Article 129(g) Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984. Cited Cases: • Lal Khan v. The State (2006 SCMR 1846) • Riaz Ahmed v. The State (2010 SCMR 846) • Abdul Qadeer v. The State (2024 SCMR 1146) • Riasat Ali v. The State (2024 SCMR 1224) (d) Penal Code (XLV of 1860) ---- Ss. 302(b), 109 & 149 ---- Motive—Failure to prove—Effect. Alleged motive of enmity due to runaway marriage remained unsubstantiated; no complaint was lodged by accused regarding alleged marriage. Failure to produce key witnesses or documentary proof (Nikah-nama) rendered motive unproved. (e) Criminal trial ---- Benefit of doubt ---- Principle—Single circumstance sufficient for acquittal. Where a single circumstance raises doubt, accused entitled to benefit thereof. Instant case rife with multiple inconsistencies, contradictions, and evidentiary lapses creating serious doubts in prosecution story. Cited Cases: • Tariq Pervez v. The State (1995 SCMR 1345) • Muhammad Akram v. The State (2009 SCMR 230) Disposition: Petition converted into appeal and allowed. Judgments of Lahore High Court dated 08.03.2019 and Trial Court dated 24.10.2016 set aside. Petitioners Sardar Khan and Amjad Ali acquitted of the charge and ordered to be released forthwith unless required in any other case.

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: (a) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1950—Section 5(2) read with Section 109 APC—Frivolous litigation and abuse of process—Repeated and baseless allegations of misconduct and torture against public officials, after successive investigations found claims to be false, held to constitute clear abuse of judicial process—Filing of repetitive petitions without fresh evidence is not a legitimate exercise of legal remedy but amounts to vexatious litigation. (b) Review jurisdiction—Scope—Where review petition merely seeks to reargue settled factual controversies without discovery of new evidence or showing any error apparent on record, dismissal by High Court is proper—Reappraisal of evidence is beyond review jurisdiction. (c) Conduct of litigants—Malafide intent—Petitioners’ sudden “pardon” of respondents during hearing considered indicative of bad faith and lack of bona fide prosecution—Such conduct undermines judicial integrity and invites imposition of costs. (d) Judicial process—Sanctity and deterrence—Courts are duty-bound to safeguard process from misuse; frivolous petitions consume public time and obstruct administration of justice—Imposition of exemplary costs justified to deter abuse. Disposition: Petition for leave to appeal refused—High Court judgment dated 15-04-2025 upheld—Petition dismissed with costs of Rs. 20,000 to be deposited within 30 days.