‘The mere pendency of any appeal, revision, or constitutional petition does not, of itself, stay the execution or implementation of the order impugned': SC
A three-judge bench, headed by Chief Justice Yahya Afridi, ruled that while hearing the petitions of Chief Land Commissioner and Punjab/ Senior Member Board of Revenue Punjab, Lahore against the Lahore High Court (LHC)'s order.
The same bench, in dismissal of the application for pre-arrest bail by the LHC on 19.11.2024, maintained; 'Prompt and faithful enforcement of judicial orders is fundamental to the criminal justice system. Once pre-arrest bail is declined by a competent court of law and the accused stands exposed to arrest in accordance with law.'
Both the judgments were authored by Yahya Afridi.
In revenue department case, the judgment noted that the LHC over a decade ago directed revenue authorities to re-decide the matter in accordance with law. Despite such clear directions, the Deputy Land Commissioner, Bahawalpur, failed to act, resulting in unreasonable and unexplained delay.
The judgment said when superior courts issue remand directions, they are to be complied with faithfully and expeditiously. Such failure is contrary to the constitutional duty of all authorities to act in aid of judicial orders.
It clarified; 'The mere pendency of any appeal, revision, or constitutional petition does not, of itself, stay the execution or implementation of the order impugned. This principle is expressly embodied in Order XX Rule 1 of the Supreme Court Rules, 1980.
The judgment noted that in Rashid Baig vs. Muhammad Mansha (2024 SCMR 1385) the apex court made it clear; 'that mere pendency of a petition before this Court does not, by itself, operate as a stay of proceedings, which may only be lawfully restrained by an express injunctive order of the Court. Thus, administrative inaction premised on the mere pendency of further proceedings, without any lawful restraint, is both unjustified and impermissible.'
The judgment said regrettable that despite the clear pronouncement of this Court in Rashid Baig's case expressing disapproval of such misuse of procedural pendency, the same practice continues unabated. This reflects not merely individual lapses, but a persistent pattern of administrative disregard for binding remand orders, which in itself constitutes systemic failure requiring urgent redress.
The judgment reiterated that failure by the relevant authorities to observe established principles requiring prompt compliance with remand orders would frustrate the administration of justice and violate their constitutional duty.
In dismissal of pre-arrest bail case, the Supreme Court clarified that any practice whereby police authorities treat the mere filing of a petition before the Supreme Court as an implied stay or bar to arrest, despite the dismissal of pre-arrest bail, indicates a misunderstanding of the purpose of pre-arrest bail.
This relief exists as an exceptional measure to protect individuals against arbitrary or malafide arrest, where circumstances clearly warrant such protection. Once a competent court has declined pre-arrest bail, it has necessarily determined that no such exceptional circumstances exist and arrest is lawful and necessary to ensure an effective investigation.
Allowing the mere act of filing another petition to operate as a de facto stay would render that judicial determination meaningless, defeat the objective of ensuring prompt and fair investigation, and risk abuse of process by enabling accused persons to indefinitely evade arrest without any legal basis.
Therefore, judicial orders must remain binding and enforceable unless and until a competent court expressly orders otherwise. It must be remembered that interim protection is not automatic; it must be specifically sought and expressly granted. Absent such an order, a refusal of bail remains fully operative and must be implemented promptly and in good faith by investigating authorities.
The Court said the practice of delaying or avoiding arrest on the pretext of a pending petition raises serious concerns, as it essentially frustrates and weakens ongoing investigations and undermines the authority and finality of judicial orders. In addition, such a practice risks promoting a culture of impunity, enabling accused persons to evade the process of law by exploiting systemic inaction.
The judgment said that investigating officers and police authorities are legally bound to act upon court orders dismissing pre-arrest bail immediately, without waiting for further instructions or presuming the existence of any stay where none has been granted. Administrative convenience, internal practice, or mere pendency of higher-forum proceedings cannot justify or excuse failure to act in accordance with law.
Copyright Business Recorder, 2025
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Express Tribune
14 hours ago
- Express Tribune
Imran seeks bail relief from apex court
Listen to article Former prime minister Imran Khan has challenged a Lahore High Court (LHC) order rejecting his bail pleas, contending that prosecution has adopted three different stances to link him with the alleged conspiracy of May 9, 2023 rioting incidents, all of which were rejected by different courts. The PTI founder through his counsel Salman Safdar filed a petition against the LHC order in the Supreme Court. A division bench of the high court led by Justice Shahbaz Ali Rizvi on June 24 held that Imran was allegedly involved in the rioting conspiracy in view of the testimonies of two police officials. Commenting on the order, the petition said the prosecution repeatedly failed to establish any credible nexus between Imran Khan and the alleged occurrence as narrated in the FIR. According to the petition, the prosecution in its attempts to link the petitioner with the purported acts of conspiracy and abetment resorted to three conflicting versions, each differing in terms of the alleged date, time, location, and witnesses of abetment. It said all three versions have been judicially disbelieved either by the anti-terrorism courts (ATCs) or by the LHC. It noted that during proceedings for pre-arrest bail before the ATC-III in Lahore, the prosecution belatedly claimed that a police official, Hassam Afzal, allegedly overheard a conspiracy at Zaman Park. It claimed that this event happened two days before May 9on May 7. The prosecution also claimed that another Inspector Asmat Kamal overheard the abetment at Chakri Rest Area five days prior to the occurrenceon May 4, 2023 "This version, however, was discredited due to the prosecution's failure to justify the delayed disclosure of such critical information and was consequently rejected by the learned Special Judge ATC-III in Lahore who confirmed the pre-arrest bails of the petitioner on March 1, 2024 in FIR No 366/23 and 1078/23." The petition said that after the collapse of its first narrative, the prosecution advanced a second version during the hearing of criminal revision before the LHC, contending that Imran Khan allegedly incited the acts through media statements. However, the prosecution could not produce any objectionable or incriminating material to substantiate this claim, which led the LHC to reject this version as well. Subsequently, the state sought to rely on the statements of three new witnessesincluding PTI leaders Sadaqat Abbasi and Wasiq Qayyumas fresh evidence to support its third version of the conspiracy. "This final attempt too was found wanting and was expressly disbelieved by the ATC-I, Rawalpindi, which discharged the co-accused Bushra Imran through a well-reasoned order dated 20.08.2024. "The prosecution's continued failure to present coherent, consistent, and credible evidence after multiple opportunities clearly brings the case within the realm of further inquiry, making the petitioner entitled to the concession of post-arrest bail under Section 497(2) CrPC 1898," it said. The petition stated that despite the rejection of all three prosecutorial versions by various competent forums, the LHC on June 24 declined Imran's bail while relying solely on the statements of the two police officialsInspector Asmat Kamal and ASI Hassam Afzal. "These very statements, however, had already been judicially disbelieved in earlier proceedings where both pre-arrest and post-arrest bails were granted to the petitioner," it said. It said the reliance placed by the LHC on previously discarded and delayed police statements amounted to a clear inconsistency in judicial appreciation of evidence. "These contradictory views of the courts below, especially in a case where the only allegation is of abetment and conspiracy, further reinforce that the matter warrants deeper scrutiny and falls squarely within the parameters of further inquiry," it said. According to the petition, in the order, LHC attempted to justify the delay in the statements of the witnesses by relying on an explanation furnished by the prosecutor, who claimed that the information regarding abatement was promptly communicated and brought on police record on May 4, 2023. "Shockingly, this explanation had never been offered before any judicial forum neither during the proceedings of pre-arrest or post-arrest bails before the learned ATCs, nor during the remand hearings, nor even before the LHC during the remand hearing or the Supreme Court in earlier stages. "This new explanation appears for the first time in the impugned order, without any evidentiary foundation or prosecutorial assertion to support it. "The reliance placed on such a retrospective and unsubstantiated statement of the prosecutor constitutes a manifest error on the part of the learned division bench," it added. It said the LHC is inadvertently filling the lacunae left by the prosecutiona task clearly outside the scope of judicial discretion in bail matters and undermines the fairness of the reasoning applied in the impugned order. The petition stated that Imran Khan has been maliciously implicated in the instant case as part of a calculated and politically motivated design to prolong his incarceration and subject him to harassment, and tarnish his public image. It said the circumstances demonstrate that the petitioner's arrest was never genuinely required in the cases pertaining to May 9. This was evident from the police's conspicuous inaction over a prolonged period of fourteen months in implicating and arresting the Petitioner in this case. The petition said the police knew the whereabouts of the petitionersAdiala Jailbut made no meaningful attempt to effect his arrest. "This lack of urgency or interest on the part of the investigating agency strongly supports the inference that the arrest was not necessitated by the merits of the case, but was rather a tool of oppression, thereby further justifying the grant of post-arrest bail" The petition said Imran Khan was entitled to the grant of post-arrest bail on the well-established principle of consistency, as affirmed through various judgments of the apex court. "A critical and directly relevant bail order passed in favour of a co-accused, Mr. Ejaz Chaudhary, by [the SC] on May 2, 2025, during the pendency of the present bail matter before the [LHC], appears to have escaped the attention of the learned division bench. "The said order was rendered by a three-member bench headed by Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan, wherein post-arrest bail was granted to Mr Ejaz Chaudhary despite allegations of conspiracy concerning the events of 9th May. "In para 5 of the said judgment, this [SC] expressed concern over the prosecution's failure to justify the delay in recording the supplementary statement of the complainant "Further, in para 6, it was held that on a tentative assessment of the record, the case against the co-accused fell within the ambit of further inquiry under Section 497(2) CrPC 1898." The petition highlighted that the ATC-III in Lahore confirmed Imran's pre-arrest bail in two May 9 cases through a detailed order on March 1, 2024, followed by the grant of post-arrest bail in four additional cases on November 8, 204. "These orders, based on similar allegations and the same prosecutorial evidence, have not been set aside by any Superior Court and have attained finality." It said Imran Khan has already been granted bail in 21 criminal cases arising out of the May 9 incidents, all of which relied on substantially identical evidence. "These consistent judicial findings strongly support his entitlement to post-arrest bail on the ground of parity and further inquiry, particularly in the face of a case fabricated at the behest of political adversaries. "Furthermore, both [the LHC] and the [ATCs] at Lahore and Rawalpindi have, in multiple proceedings, recorded observations that cast serious doubt on the credibility of the prosecution's narrative," it said.
Business Recorder
18 hours ago
- Business Recorder
LHC rules in favour of daughter's share in estate of deceased father
LAHORE: The Lahore High Court (LHC) has held that it is a settled principle that when fraud is alleged, limitation begins to run from the date of knowledge. The court also observed that immovable property can be gifted orally, but the donee must establish three ingredients beyond doubt, declaration of gift by the donor, acceptance by the donee and delivery of possession. The court passed this order in a petition of Mst Rashidaan Bibi who approached the court against the decision of an appellate court which set aside the decision of the trial court by virtue of which the petitioner seeking cancellation of Tamleek Mutation was decreed in favour of her brother Abdul Sattar. The court observed that the appellate court erred in reversing these findings without any valid legal justification. The court; therefore, set aside the judgement and the decree passed by the appellate court and restored decision of the trial court. The court observed that the trial court has rightly relied upon the judgment rendered by this court, wherein it was held that a gift transaction, particularly one aimed at excluding legal heirs, must be proved with strict compliance of the legal requirements and any deviation renders the gift void. In the present case, all three essential ingredients are lacking in evidence, and the surrounding circumstances strongly suggest that the alleged Tamleek was nothing more than a colourable device to deprive lawful heirs of their inheritance, the court added. The trial court rightly held while deciding the issue that the suit was within time, as the petitioner gained knowledge of the fraudulent Tamleek after the death of her father Ashraf Ali, which finding was upheld by the appellate court, the court added. The record shows that the petitioner pleaded specific facts regarding fraud, collusion with the revenue staff, the physical incapacity of the donor, and forged thumb impressions, the court noted. The petitioner also appeared and reaffirmed these facts on oath, thereby discharging the initial burden. It was then for the donee to prove the genuineness of the Tamleek, which he failed to do, the court observed. The court observed that the alleged justification for disinheriting the real daughters on the ground of love and affection is seriously questionable. Even if the purported intention behind the Tamleek was claimed to be pious, it is inconceivable how depriving daughters of their Shariah-mandated inheritance could be treated as an act of virtue, the court added. The Holy Quran unequivocally guarantees the rights of daughters in their father's estate. Any attempt to defeat this divine commandment through a dubious transaction is not legally sustainable, the court concluded. Copyright Business Recorder, 2025
Business Recorder
18 hours ago
- Business Recorder
Cancellation of bail application: IK files appeal in SC against LHC order
ISLAMABAD: Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf founder Imran Khan requested the Supreme Court to overturn the Lahore High Court (LHC) order to cancel his bail application in 9th May cases. The former prime minister on Saturday through Barrister Salman Safdar filed an appeal and cited the federal government and Inspector Imran Sadiq of Gulberg Police Station as respondents The Anti-Terrorism Court in Lahore on November 27, 2024 had rejected Imran Khan's post-arrest bail requests in eight separate cases linked to the violent events of May 9, including the attack on Jinnah House. PTI founder steps up criticism of 'establishment' A two-member LHC bench, headed by Justice Shahbaz Ali Rizvi, also dismissed the incarcerated ex-premier's bail petitions last month after hearing the arguments of lawyers from the petitioner and the government. Salman Safdar argued that his client had no role in the violence or arson on May 9. He stated that Imran Khan was in the NAB custody at the time of the mayhem and later publicly condemned the unrest. It was impossible for him to take part in those riots, besides raising doubts over the case on the basis of 'contradictions' in the prosecution statements, he added. The petitioner's lawyer stated that the First Information Report (FIR) lacked sufficient evidence and termed the allegations of his involvement in the riots as baseless. Salman contended that the charges against Khan were politically motivated, and the federal government has been changing its narrative repeatedly, comparing it to a cricket strategy full of confusing deliveries like googlies and off-breaks. The lawyer said that several legal decisions had already gone against the government in similar cases, and he presented nearly 25 court decisions to support his arguments. He also pointed out that in all the cases, the complainants were police officials. The petitioner sought further investigation into the case, as he suspected mala fide intent on the part of the police for avoiding his arrest for five months. He maintained that the evidence against him is inadequate, while other co-accused have already been granted bail. He also called the delayed police statements unreliable and asserted that he deserves the right to bail. The May 9, 2023, events refer to the riots that were triggered by the arrest of PTI founder Imran Khan from the premises of Islamabad High Court (IHC) in a graft case. During the protests, the miscreants targeted the civil and military installations, including the Corps Commander's House in Lahore and the General Headquarters (GHQ) in Rawalpindi. Several PTI leaders and workers were released on bail after their arrests, while many still remain behind bars. Copyright Business Recorder, 2025
