Open to everyone
Resources
Judgments, notes and lectures the chamber has published. General material, not advice on your own matter.
Bail: Grant and Refusal Under Pakistani Law
Bail (Sections 497 and 498 Cr.P.C.)
Why do courts grant bail, and why do they refuse it? A study of 33 judgments of the Supreme Court and the Peshawar, Lahore, Sindh, Islamabad and Balochistan High Courts (2009-2026): reasonable grounds and further inquiry, non-prohibitory offences, women and juveniles, statutory delay, pre-arrest bail, cross-versions and absconsion, with a practical guide for both sides.
All research done on the Pakistan Law Site. Judgments read in full; quotations from head notes only.
Open the noteThe Murasila, the Scribe, the Doctor and the Spot Proceedings: Recording and Testing Evidence in Pakistani Criminal Trials
Evidence
100 judgments (1978–2026) on the murasila, the scribe, medical evidence and the spot proceedings, with 124 practical points for recording and testing evidence.
In a murder or hurt case in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, the first few hours leave behind a small set of papers: the murasila, the injury sheet, the inquest report, the medico-legal certificate, the OPD chit, the FIR, the site plan and the post-mortem report. Most trials are decided on whether these papers agree with each other and with the witnesses. This research paper studies 100 reported judgments of the Supreme Court and the Peshawar High Court from 1978 to 2026: fifty on the murasila, the scribe and the proceedings at the spot and the hospital, and fifty on medical evidence, the doctor, the post-mortem and the dying declaration. It adds 124 practical points for a lawyer recording or testing evidence. The recent decisions read the scribe, the doctor and the investigating officer against the clock: when the injured arrived, when the murasila was written, when the doctor examined, and whether the times fit. For the defence: prepare a one-page timeline from the exhibits; test the scribe on the order of documents and on what the complainant did not say; test the doctor on arrival, history, consciousness and the register; and do not rely on a single irregularity. The cases that succeed show several pointing the same way. For the prosecution: produce every link (the scribe, the Moharrir, the carrier, the doctors and the marginal witnesses) and put the OPD chit and the register on record. The full paper can be downloaded free from the Research section of this website.
Open the noteThe Investigating Officer in the Criminal Case: His Role, His Limits, and the Investigation Weaknesses That Support Acquittal
Investigation
103 judgments (1972–2026) on the investigating officer's powers and limits and the investigation lapses that the courts treat as fatal to the prosecution.
A criminal trial is fought on the evidence the police collect. The investigating officer decides which witnesses to record, whether to visit the spot, what to recover, and when samples go to the laboratory. The courts say his job is confined to collecting evidence (Muhammad Arshad, PLD 2011 SC 350), but the quality of what he collects decides whether the case is proved beyond reasonable doubt. This research paper studies 103 reported judgments of the Supreme Court and the Peshawar High Court from 1972 to 2026. It covers the IO's statutory powers and their limits; the police opinion of innocence and column No. 2; delay in recording statements under section 161; the site plan and spot inspection; recoveries and mashirs; narcotics samples and the chain of custody; the case diary; failure to examine the IO; withheld evidence; the officer who is both complainant and investigator; and successive investigations. The main finding: the centre of the law has not changed. The IO collects, the court decides, and the police opinion binds no one. What has changed is how closely the courts now test each step: the FIR, the statement, the site plan, the recovery, the sample, the register and the carrier must each be shown on paper and through a witness. The paper is honest about the limits. It also collects the cases where a lapse was held not to be fatal, and gives a practical checklist for both the defence and the prosecution. The full paper, with a question-and-answer summary of every judgment, can be downloaded free from the Research section of this website.
Open the noteThe Forensic Science Laboratory Report in Pakistani Criminal Trials: Chain of Custody, Firearm, Blood and Digital Evidence
Evidence
102 judgments (1994–2026) on how courts test FSL, chemical examiner, firearm, blood, DNA and digital evidence, with 100 defined terms and practical points.
When the police recover charas, a pistol, empties or a blood-stained cloth, they send a sample to a laboratory, and the laboratory's short report is often treated as the end of the matter. The Supreme Court and the Peshawar High Court read it more carefully. The report speaks only about the article that reached the laboratory, so the prosecution must prove, link by link, that it is the same article that was seized. This research paper studies 102 reported judgments from 1994 to 2026: 46 on narcotics reports and the chain of custody, 38 on firearm, empties, blood and serology reports, and 18 on audio and video recordings, CCTV, voice, mobile phones, DNA, fingerprints, handwriting and section 510 Cr.P.C. The law has moved in four phases: from treating expert reports as mere corroboration, to the Supreme Court's chain-of-custody decisions in narcotics cases from 2018, to its decisions on crime empties sent to the laboratory only after the accused was arrested (from 2022), and finally to the 2025–2026 decisions that insist on the register, the carrier and the Moharrir. For the defence: put every date on one line, from recovery and sealing to dispatch, receipt and report; insist that the Moharrir, the carrier and the seizing officer are produced; ask whether the empties went to the laboratory before the weapon was recovered; and test any recording against PLD 2019 SC 675. The paper also sets out the cases that go the other way, where a delay or a gap was held not to be fatal, and explains one hundred terms used in the judgments. The full paper can be downloaded free from the Research section of this website.
Open the noteQuashment of FIR in Pakistan: Section 561-A, Article 199 and the Limits of the High Court
Criminal procedure
A study of 177 reported judgments (44 Supreme Court, 133 Peshawar High Court) on when an FIR can be quashed, under which provision, and what each side should do.
An accused named in an FIR usually asks one question first: can the High Court end this case now? This research paper answers that question from 177 reported judgments of the Supreme Court of Pakistan (44) and the Peshawar High Court (133), all taken from the Pakistan Law Site. The main finding is that the law has moved. The Supreme Court began with a general bar on quashing during investigation (Ahmad Saeed, 1996 SCMR 186). It now draws a clear line: section 561-A Cr.P.C. reaches only proceedings pending in a court, while the FIR and the investigation can be reached, if at all, only under Article 199 of the Constitution, and only in exceptional cases (PLD 2023 SC 265; PLD 2025 SC 254). When does the Peshawar High Court quash an FIR? When the police had no authority to register it, when a statutory bar on cognizance applies, or when the facts on the face of the FIR show that no offence exists. When does it refuse? When the case turns on disputed facts, when a dispute looks civil but also discloses a cognizable offence, or when the plea can be taken later before the trial court under sections 249-A and 265-K Cr.P.C. Practical points for the accused: read the FIR the way the High Court will; if registration was without authority, file under Article 199, not section 561-A; give your version to the investigating officer in writing; and after the challan, go to the trial court under 249-A or 265-K first. Practical points for the complainant and the State: rely on the statutory duty to investigate under section 154, show that the issue is factual, and point out that civil and criminal proceedings can run together. The full paper, with the case table and a practical guide for both sides, can be downloaded free from the Research section of this website.
Open the noteCancellation of Bail in Pakistani Law: Principles, Phases and Practice (1965–2026)
Bail
Eighty-two reported judgments of the Supreme Court and the Peshawar High Court on when bail once granted can be cancelled, by which court, and on what grounds.
A person on bail has his liberty for the time being, and cancelling bail takes it away without a conviction. That is why the courts treat an application to cancel bail differently from an application to grant it. This research paper studies eighty-two reported judgments of the Supreme Court and the Peshawar High Court, from Mushtaq Ahmad (PLD 1966 SC 126) to the decisions of 2023 to 2025. The central authority today is Sami Ullah v. Laiq Zada (2020 SCMR 1115), which sets out seven grounds on which bail may be cancelled. A bail order that rests on a wrong principle can be recalled even if the accused has behaved well (Sidra Abbas, 2020 SCMR 2089). A bail order that is merely doubtful will stand if the accused has not misused it. The paper also answers questions that come up in practice but are rarely written about. Who can cancel bail granted by a Magistrate? What happens when the complainant first gave a no-objection, or compromised, and then changed his mind? Does a pending trial protect the accused? Must the victim be heard? For the applicant: plead the Sami Ullah ground that fits and attach proof; if the order is perverse, show the material it ignored; if the ground is misuse, give dates and documents; and check that you are before the right forum. For the accused: ask for a hearing and recall of any ex parte order, show the attendance record and that there has been no misuse, and argue that cancellation needs strong and exceptional grounds. The full paper, with a question-and-answer summary of every judgment, can be downloaded free from the Research section of this website.
Open the noteKhula in Pakistani Law: Evolution, Present Position and the Unresolved Conflict in Supreme Court Authority (1952–2026)
Family law
67 judgments of the Supreme Court, the Federal Shariat Court and the Peshawar High Court (1952–2026) on khula, and the present conflict on whether khula must be the wife's own election, with a drafting guide for both sides.
Khula began as an agreement needing the husband's consent (PLD 1952 Lahore 113), became a right the court could grant (PLD 1959 Lahore 566; Khurshid Bibi, PLD 1967 SC 97), and is now regulated by the Family Courts Act, 1964. The Supreme Court is now divided. One line holds that khula must be the wife's own election and cannot be substituted for the remedy she sought: Ibrahim Khan (PLD 2024 SC 645), Faryal Maqsood (PLD 2025 SC 262), Seema Hanif Khan (PLD 2026 SC 91), Naila Javed (PLD 2026 SC 302). The other holds that where cruelty is unproved the marriage ends in khula with forfeiture of dower: Muhammad Arif (2015 SCMR 804), Wajiha Rasheed (PLD 2026 SC 319). No larger Bench has resolved it.
Open the note