Legal Principle & Question Decided

Ruling Summary: This decision was rendered by the Lahore High Court (Honorable Mr. Justice Muhammad Tariq Nadeem), officially reported as 2026 LHC 4593. In this matter between Tanvir Ahmed and The State etc, the court adjudicated key questions of statutory construction, procedural regularity, and legal precedent under Pakistani law.

Core Holding: The honorable bench evaluated governing statutory provisions and judicial authorities to establish the rights of the parties, delivering the binding reasoning set out below.

Full Judgment Text & Judicial Ruling

COURT: Lahore High Court (Honorable Mr. Justice Muhammad Tariq Nadeem) DECISION DATE: 19-06-2026 TAGLINE: 1. Maintaining daily case diaries is a strict statutory obligation. Unexplained gaps in documentation and failing to initiate proper absconder proceedings shatter the presumption of a prompt and fair investigation. Furthermore, mechanically freezing cross-version proceedings is patently lopsided and frustrates the investigating officer's fundamental duty to neutrally discover the actual facts. 2. Investigations must conclude within the statutory fourteen days. Inordinate delays fundamentally violate the constitutional right to a fair trial. Burying police files for years exposes a shocking systemic paralysis, reflecting a total breakdown of internal police supervision and a lack of external judicial oversight by the Magistrate. 3. Supervisory police authorities are directed to meticulously audit their jurisdictions to identify and immediately rectify any ongoing investigative delays. Proactive steps are mandated to enforce statutory timelines, daily diary maintenance, and consolidated cross-version investigations. A comprehensive compliance report regarding these corrective measures must be submitted to the High Court within thirty days. 4. Post-arrest bail is safely granted where the alleged offences do not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.P.C., making "bail, not jail" the governing rule and refusal an exception. This applies with greater force when an unexplained seven-day delay in lodging the FIR points toward prior deliberation and consultation, the investigation is complete and no exceptional circumstances exist to justify treating the case as an exception. CASE DETAILS: Crl. Misc. 32557/26 ============================================================ Form No: HCJD/C-121 ORDER SHEET IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, LAHORE. (JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT)

Case No. Crl. Misc. No.32557-B of 2026

Tanvir Ahmed versus The State and another

Sr. No. of order/ Proceedings Date of order/ Proceedings Order with signatures of Judge, and that of parties or counsel, where necessary.

19.06.2026 Rai Shaukat Ali, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Muhammad Moeen Ali , Deputy Prosecutor General with Aftab Ahmad Phularwan, District Police Officer, Kasur, Zafar Iqbal, SDPO, Chunian, Kamran Shahzad, SHO, Kanganpur and Muhammad Amin ASI/I.O Mr. M. Meesam Khan, Advocate for the complainant

Through this petition filed under section 497 Cr.P.C. Tanvir Ahmed petitioner entreats post-arrest bail in case FIR No.285 dated 02.09.2018, registered under section s 337A(i), 337A(ii), 337F(i), 337F(ii), 337F(vi), 337L(2), 148 and 149 PPC, at Police Station Kanganpur, District Kasur. 2. Briefly, the prosecution story as unfolded in crime report is that there was a previous animosity between the parties over a children’s squabble. On 26.08.2018 at about 07:30 p.m., the accused persons allegedly diverted the canal water turn towards their own land. When the complai nant’s brothers namely Saifullah and Muhammad Amin went to restore the water channel to their land , the armed accused persons, raising a lalkara, launched a concerted assault upon them. Specifically, accused Abu Bakar inflicted a club blow near right eye of Saifullah. Accused Muhammad Sabir gave a blow from the blunt side of his hatchet, fracturing left arm of Saifullah, followed by a sharp hatchet blow to his left calf. Tanvir Ahmed petitioner inflicted a blunt hatchet blow, fracturing right leg of Saifullah, followed by another blow to his back. Accused Muhammad Ashiq inflicted multiple club blows on the head, back and limbs of Muhammad Amin. Upon hearing the hue and Crl. Misc. No. 32557-B/2026 2

cry, when the complainant Bahadur Ali, his father Muhammad Hanif, brother Muhammad Nawaz an d servant Muhammad Yousaf arrived to rescue them, they were also assaulted. Accused Muhammad Sajid inflicted club blows on the head of the complainant , petitioner Tanvir caused a head injury to the father of the complainant with the blunt side of a hatchet; accused Ali Asghar injured Muhammad Nawaz with a club and accused Muhammad Ashiq caused injury with a club on the head of complainant ’s servant Muhammad Yousaf. This brutal and concerted attack, witnessed by ocular account and corroborated by medico -legal c ertificates, culminated in the registration of the above-mentioned crime report. 3. I have heard the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Deputy Prosecutor General assisted by learned counsel for the complainant assiduously and gone through the record as well as the report submitted by the District Police Officer, Kasur, with utmost care and caution. 4. Occurrence in this case allegedly took place on 26.08.2018 whereas FIR was lodged on 02.09.2018 i.e. with a delay of seven days. There is complete silence with regard to any explanation qua the delay in lodging FIR which shows that the FIR was got registered with due deliberation and consultation. Reliance is placed upon the case-law titled as “Gul Muhammad v. The State” (2023 SCMR 857), wherein the Supreme Court of Pakistan has been pleased to observe as infra:- “In the instant case, the crime report was lodged after an inordinate delay of two days for which not even a single word has been put forward by the complainant. The delayed registration of FIR prima facie shows deliberations and consultation on the part of the complainant. ” 5. After going through the narration of FIR as well as evidentiary material collected by the police and presented before this Court, it transpires that although the petitioner is nominated in FIR with the allegation as mentioned in Paragraph No.2 Crl. Misc. No. 32557-B/2026 3

above, but the fact remains that amongst the offences so far incorporated in crime report, offences under section s 337A(i), 337F(i) and 337L(2) PPC are bailable in nature whereas remaining offences do not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497 Cr.P.C. It is by now well -settled principle of law that if the offence s do not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497 Cr.P.C. then basic rule is “bail, not jail” and “refusal an exception ”. No exceptional circumstance is available in this case as the petitioner has no previous conviction to his credit . Reliance is placed on the case -laws reported as “Tariq Bashir and 5 others v. The State” (PLD 1995 SC 34) and “Muhammad Ramzan alias Jani v. The State and others” (2020 SCMR 717). 6. Furthermore, it is a cornerstone of criminal jurisprudence that the liberty of an individual is a cherished, invaluable and fundamental right, unequivocally guaranteed and protected under the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. The courts, acting as the ultimate custodians of such sacred constitutional guarantees, ar e bound to jealously guard against the unjustified curtailment of a citizen ’s freedom. Since an accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty, any unwarranted or prolonged pre -trial incarceration fundamentally amounts to premature punishment . Guidance h as been sought from the pronouncements made by the Supreme Court of Pakistan in the cases titled “Abdul Rehman v. The State and others” (2023 SCMR 2081) and “Naveed Sattar v. The State and others ” (2024 SCMR 205). 7. Learned Deputy Prosecutor General assisted by learned counsel for the complainant vociferously argued that after registration of FIR, the petitioner remained away from the process of law for a considerable period of six years, ten months and nineteen days and for this reason, he has lost h is right o f claiming discretionary relief. However, they have frankly conceded that after registration of crime report in this case on Crl. Misc. No. 32557-B/2026 4

02.09.2018, investigation of the case was carried out till 08.12.2018, but subsequently no effort to arrest the petitione r or to get him declared a proclaimed offender was made and after remaining under the heavy dust for a noticeable period as mentioned above, the police file of the case ultimately came to life again on 21.07.2025, when the petitioner was arrested in this case, thus, the petitioner cannot be held liable to face the music of this slackness on the part of police hierarchy. 8. The petitioner, after his arrest in this case on 21.07.2025, has been sent to judicial lockup and since then he is behind bars without any fruitful progress towards the conclusion of his trial . The investigation has already been completed and he is no more required by the police for further investigation. Therefore, further incarceration of the petitioner would not serve any useful purpose and concession of bail cannot be withheld as punishment. Reliance is placed upon the case -laws titled as “Husnain Mustafa v. The State and another ” (2019 SCMR 1914), “Binyameen v. The State through A.G. Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and another (2026 SCMR 99) and “Muzammil Hussain v. The State and another” (2026 SCMR 917). 9. For the foregoing reasons, this petition is allowed and the petitioner is admitted to post-arrest bail subject to furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.5,00,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court. 10. It is, however, clarified that the observations made hereinabove are tentative in nature, and strictly confined to the disposal of this bail petition. 11. Before parting with the order, this Court observed with grave concern a deeply troubling factual matrix regarding the conduct of investigating authorities, which warrant ed strict judicial notice and accordingly, on the last date of hearing i.e. 17.06.2026, direction was issued to the District Police Officer, Crl. Misc. No. 32557-B/2026 5

Kasur, to appear in person and apprise the Court about the conduct of his subordinates. 12. In compliance with the above order of this Court , the District Police Officer, Kasur, has submitted his report which manifests that FIR in this case was registered on 02.09.2018, but following the submission of an incomplete report under section 173 Cr.P.C. on 05.01.2019, the investigation of the case was practically abandoned. The record explicitly reflects that no investigating officer was entrusted with the file from 08.12.2018 to 03.04.2019 and subsequently, the file was entirely neglected until 21.07.2025 when the present petitioner was abruptly arrested. Furthermore, the investigating officer failed to obtain warrants of arrest or initiate proclamation proceedings against the absconding accused persons despite the lapse of a considerable period. The law dictates that where an accused is concealing himself, the investigating officer must first obtain warrants of arrest under section 75 Cr.P.C. and if unexecuted, the investigating officer is strictly required to initiate proceedings under section 87 Cr.P.C. for issuance of a proclamation against the accused . Initiating such proceedings requires the pendency of a non -bailable warrant, reasonable efforts for its execution and the court ’s satisfaction that the accused is absconding. The police also blatantly ignored Rules 23.20 and 23.21 of the Police Rules, 1934, which mandate the entry of absconders in the District Register and the maintenance of a progress register to monitor apprehension efforts . For clarity, these Rules are reproduced as infra: - 23.20. District register of absconders. - (1) In each district a register of absconders in Form 23.20(1) shall be maintained by the head of the prosecuting agency. The register shall be divided into two parts: - Part I - will contain the names of all absconders in cases of the home district, irrespective of their residence, about whom information in Form 22.54(a), or otherwise, has been received. Part II - will contain the names of absconders in cases of other districts who are resident of the home district or likely to visit it. All entries regarding Crl. Misc. No. 32557-B/2026 6

residents of the home districts shall be made in red ink. The names in both parts shall be entered, as far as possible, according to the police stations of which the absconder is resident or from which he is absconding. (2) As soon as an absconder has been proclaimed under section 87, Code of Criminal Procedure, his name shall be entered in the Proclaimed Offenders Register prescribed in rule 22.22(1), a note being made in the column for remarks to this effect. (3) Should action under section 87, Code of Criminal Procedure, not be taken against an absconder for any reason, such a lack of evidence, etc., his name shall be struck out and a remark added giving reasons in the column of remarks. (4) When a person whose finger impression slip is on record absconds, information of the fact shall be sent to the Finger Print Bureau. All re - arrests of such absconders shall be communicated to the Finger Print Bureau. (5) [xxx]. Note (1)- The term absconder shall be held to mean a person of a cognizable offence against whom the officer incharge of the police station concerned considers that there is sufficient evidence to justify his arrest, but whose whereabouts are unknown. Note (2)- [xxx] 23.21. Register showing progress of action against absconders and proclaimed offenders : - In order that a proper check may be kept on the progress of action prescribed in rule 21.5 and 26.5, the head of the persecuting agency, shall maintain a register in Form 23.21. The register shall be examined at frequent intervals by the Superintendent of Police and other gazetted Officer in supervisory cha rge of police stations and by prosecuting officers, and the latter shall be held responsible that no delay in proclamation and attachment of property or perfunctory action in regard thereto, whether on the part of police office r or the court, is allowed to occur.” 13. Additionally, the statutory framework stringently abhors open-ended and protracted investigations, enforcing rigorous timelines for fina lization. Under Section 173(1) Cr.P.C. the investigating officer is mandatorily required to finalize the investigation and submit the report under section 173 Cr.P.C. in the court of learned Magistrate within 14 days of the registration of FIR. For convenience, Section 173(1) Cr.P.C. is reproduced hereunder:- “173. Report of police officer: (1) Every investigation under this Chapter shall be completed without unnecessary delay, and, as soon as it is completed, the officer incharge of the police-station shall [through the Public Prosecutor]— Crl. Misc. No. 32557-B/2026 7

(a) forward to a Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of the offence on a police -report, a report in the form prescribed by the Provincial Government, setting forth the names of the parties, the nature of the infor mation and the names of the persons who appear to be acquainted with the circumstances of the case, and stating whether the accused (if arrested) has been forwarded in custody or has been released on his bond, and, if so, whether with or without sureties, and (b) communicate, in such manner as may be prescribed by the Provincial Government, the action taken by him to the person, if any, by whom the information relating to the commission of the offence was first given : [provided that, where investigation is not completed within a period of fourteen days from the date of recording of the first information report under Se ction 154, the officer incharge of the police station shall, within three days of the expiration of such period, forward to the Magistrate th rough the Public Prosecutor, an interim report in the form prescribed by the Provincial Government stating therein the result of the investigation made until then and the Court shall commence the trial on the basis of such inte rim report, unless, for reasons to be recorded, the Court decides that the trial should not so commence],” The Supreme Court of Pakistan, in the leading case on the point titled as “Amjid Khan v. The State through A.G. Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and others” (2021 SCMR 1458), has held that unjustifiable and inordinate delays in completing investigations fundamentally vitiate the fundamental rights of fair trial and due process guaranteed to every citizen under Article 10-A of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. Relevant paragraph from the above pronouncement reads as infra: - “7. The British colonial rulers had enacted the Code in 1898 and had bound themselves to submit investigation reports (challans) promptly. In 1992 the Code was amended and a proviso specifying certai n time periods was inserted after section 173(1) to ensure further expeditious submission of the reports, but these time periods are mostly observed in the breach. It is now over 73 years since we attained Independence, with a great many sacrifices, but even the standard set by foreign rulers is not met and the betrayal of the people continues. And, it seems that with every passing day the situation deteriorates further. It is a rare case in which the investigation report (challan) is submitted within fourt een days from the recording of the FIR. We are constrained to observe that this unjustifiable delay in the submission of investigation reports (challans) also vitiates the Fundamental Rights of 'fair trial and due process' which the Constitution of the Isl amic Republic of Pakistan guarantees in its Article 10A. ” Crl. Misc. No. 32557-B/2026 8

14. From a strict statutory standpoint, the total cessation of proceedings in the instant case constitutes a flagrant and severe violation of the mandatory provisions governing police investigations. The daily maintenance of case diaries or zimnis is not merely a procedural formality but a strict statutory obligation dictated by Section 172(1) Cr.P.C. which commands as under: - “172. Diary of proceedings in investigation: (1) Every police- officer making an investigation under this Chapter shall day by day enter his proceedings in the investigation in a diary, setting forth the time at which the information reached him, the time at which he began and closed his investigation, the place or places visite d by him, and a statement of the circumstances ascertained through his investigation.” This statutory duty is further reinforced by Rule 13 of Part-A in Chapter 11 and Chapter 12 of the Rules and Orders of the Lahore High Court , Lahore (Volume III) . Crucially, to ensure the chronological integrity of the investigation and to prevent the padding or antedating of evidence, the legislature provided a specific mechanism for days of inactivity. Rule 25.57(1) of the Police Rules, 1934, explicitly dictates as infra: - “25.57. Close of investigation and final report. - (1) If on any day, or days a police officer in charge of the investigation of a case makes no investigation, he shall enter a statement to this effect in the case diary of the day on which he nex t does something towards the completion of the case.” The rationale behind this strict adherence was eloquently expounded by the Supreme Court of Pakistan in the authoritative judgment titled as “Muhammad Idrees and another v. The State and others ” (2021 SCMR 612) . Elaborating on the scope and absolute privilege of a police diary, the apex Court has held as under: - “The object to require recording of the said details in the police di ary appears to be to enable the courts to check the method and manner of i nvestigation undertaken by the investigating officer.. ................................................................. A properly kept police diary would afford such information, and such information would enable the Magistrate or Judge to determine whether persons referred to in the police diary, but not sent up as witnesses by the Police, should be summoned to give evid ence in the interests of the prosecution or of the accused.” Crl. Misc. No. 32557-B/2026 9

Noticeable or unexplained delays in recording these diaries fundamentally compromise the transparency of an investigation. Therefore, the unconstitutional and unexplained gap of six years, three months and six days in writing zimnis, coupled with the sheer failure of the police to pursue the legal route of declaring the accused a fugitive under sections 87 and 88 Cr.P.C. effectively shatters the presumption of a prompt, transparent and fair investigation in the present case. 15. Furthermore, a close scrutiny of the police record reveals that while the investigating agency technically avoided the illegal practice of maintaining a separate, parallel file by recording the cross-version within the diaries of the main police file of the case, specifically in case Diary No.15 dated 30.10.2018, recorded under sections 354, 337A(i), 337F(i), 148, 149 PPC on the application of Muhammad Sabir, the total and absolute cessation of any subsequent inquiry renders this entry a hollow and deceptive formality. It is shocking to note that after 30.10.2018, the investigating officer took no effective steps to determine the culpability or innocence of the eight nominated and three unknown accused persons of cross-version, completely abandoning the counter-narrative. The criminal jurisprudence governing the consolidated investigation of counter-narratives has been authoritatively settled by a seven-member Full Bench of the august Supreme Court of Pakistan in the landmark judgment titled “Mst. Sughran Bibi v. The State” (PLD 2018 Supreme Court 595), wherein the apex Court has categorically held as under:- “(v) During the investigation the investigating officer is obliged to investigate the matter from all possible angles while keeping in view all the versions of the incident brought to his notice and, as required by Rule 25.2(3) of the Police Rules, 1934 "It is the duty of an investigating officer to find out the truth of the matter under investigation. His object shall be to discover the actual facts of the case and to arrest the real offender or offenders. He shall not commit himself prematurely to any view of the facts for or against any person." (vi) ………………….…………………………………………... Crl. Misc. No. 32557-B/2026 10

(vii) Upon conclusion of the investigation the report to be submitted under section 173, Cr.P.C is to be based upon the actual facts discovered during the investigation irrespective of the version of the incident advanced by the first informant or any other version brought to the notice of the investigating officer by any other person.” This binding directive is firmly rooted in the statutory command of Rule 25.2(3) of the Police Rules, 1934, which strictly prohibits a one -sided or biased approach, dictating as under: - “25.2(3) It is the duty of an investigating officer to fi nd out the truth of the matter under investigation. His object shall be to discover the actual facts of the case and to arrest the real offender or offenders. He shall not commit himself prematurely to any view of the facts for or against any person.” By mechanically entering the cross-version in a solitary diary and thereafter freezing all proceedings for more than six years, the investigating agency conducted a patently lopsided, unfair and heavily skewed investigation, thereby completely frustrating the statutory mandate of Rule 25.2(3) of the Police Rules, 1934 and stands in flagrant, undisguised violation of the binding dicta laid down by the august Supreme Court of Pakistan. 16. The structural hierarchy for investigative supervision is explicitly delineated in Article 18 of the Police Order, 2002, which mandates that all registered cases must be investigated by the district investigation staff under the direct supervision of the “Head of Investigation”. The supervisory officers are strictly tasked with scrutinizing the work of investigating officers to prevent deliberate lapses or mala fide intent. This internal administrative check is further reinforced by Rule 25.17(3) of the Police Rules, 1934, which places a personal, non-delegable responsibility upon superior officers to prevent institutional inertia: “25.17. Supervision by gazetted officers. - (3) Every gazetted officer shall maintain a running note -book of offences, in which he shall enter the salient points of the first information Crl. Misc. No. 32557-B/2026 11

report and case diaries as he hears them. The following are some of the points that should be entered in his note-book :- First Information Report : - (a) Police station, village, section, date and time of offence; (b) Distance of village from police station and date and time of investigation opening; (c) Name and rank of investigating officer, who should always be the senior officer available. Reasons for junior officer taking up cases should be mos t carefully checked; and (d) Salient features of the case. Case Diaries :- (a) Dates of case diaries; (b) By whom written and where; and (c) Salient features. All unnecessary delays in the course of investigation, in chalaning successf ul cases or in submitting final reports in untraced cases should be carefully…

Read the unabridged text and precedent citation network on Al Wakeelo Legal Research Platform.

Related Legal Research & Directories

• Browse all judgments from Lahore High Court (Honorable Mr. Justice Muhammad Tariq Nadeem)
• Search Pakistani statutes: Constitution of Pakistan 1973, PPC, CrPC, CPC & Family Laws
• Analyze this case with Al Wakeelo AI Legal Assistant