Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Official Citation: 2026 IHC 252095
Court / Jurisdiction: Islamabad High Court
Parties: Gulzar vs FOP etc.
Ruling Summary: This decision was rendered by the Islamabad High Court, officially reported as 2026 IHC 252095. In this matter between Gulzar and FOP 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.
COURT: Islamabad High Court (Honourable Mr. Justice Khadim Hussain Soomro) AUTHOR JUDGE: Former Honourable Chief Justice Mr. Justice Muhammad Anwar Khan Kasi DECISION DATE: 10-FEB-2026 CASE NO: Writ Petition-696-2026 CITATION: 2026 IHC 252095 PARTIES: Gulzar VS FOP etc. LAW / SECTION: under Section 9 (4) of the Transfer of Offenders Ordinance, 2002, | Section 9(4) of the Ordinance SUBJECT: Miscelleneous, Other REMARKS: Petitioner is in Adyala after sentence in KSA, he has been transferred under the Transfer of Offenders Ordinance 2002. Seeks presentation of his case to relevant court under section 9 of the ordinance. ============================================================ ORDER SHEET IN THE ISLAMABAD HIGH COURT, ISLAMABAD JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
W.P No. 696/2026 Mr. Gulzar Versus FOP, etc S. No. of order/ proceedings Date of order/ Proceedings Order with signature of Judge and that of parties or counsel where necessary. 10.02.2026 Mr.Aizaz Ali Shah, Advocate for the petitioner.
Through this writ petition, the petitioner seek s the following relief;-
“ That the respondent No.1 may kindly be directed to refer the case of detenue before a competent court under Section 9 (4) of the Transfer of Offenders Ordinance, 2002, for adaptation of the sentence.
Any other relief which this Hon’ble Court deem fit and proper may also be awarded in favour of the petitioner.”
2. At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the brother of Muhammad Uzair, son of Sardar Muhammad, a Pakistani citizen who is presently confined in Central Jail Adiala, Rawalpindi, pursuant to his conviction and sentence passed by the Sixteenth Criminal Circuit in Jeddah, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, in Case No. 2023/12/01 dated 25.10.2023. It is further submitted that respondent No.1 is the competent authority under the Transfer of Offenders Ordinance, 2002, empowered to deal with the cases of offenders transferred under the said Ordinance. Learned counsel adds that the detenue was convicted and sentenced to fifteen years’ imprisonment along with a fine of 50,000 Saudi Riyals,
2 W.P No. 696/2026
and was subsequently transferred to Pakista n to undergo the remaining sentence. It is also contended that the petitioner had earlier filed W.P. No. 3543/2025 before the Islamabad High Court, seeking provision of copies of all deportation documents, including the judgment of the foreign court, where upon, vide order dated 12.09.2025, directions were issued to the respondents to provide the requisite documents. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has been heard at length , and the available record has been carefully perused. The grievance of the petitioner essentially revolves around the alleged inaction of the competent authority in processing the case of the detenue under the provisions of the Transfer of Offenders Ordina nce, 2002. It is not disputed that the detenue, a Pakistani national, was convicted by a foreign court and has subsequently been transferred to Pakistan to undergo the remaining sentence. The relief sought in the instant petition is a direction to the respondent authority to refer the case of the detenue to the competent court for adaptation of the sentence in terms of Section 9(4) of the Ordinance. Such a request, in substance, constitutes a representation requiring consideration and decision by the compet ent executive authority under the statutory scheme. The record does not indicate that the petitioner has availed the appropriate administrative forum or that a formal representation has been decided in accordance with law. In these circumstances, and witho ut entering into
3 W.P No. 696/2026
the merits of the matter, it would be appropriate to direct that the instant petition be treated as a representation to be decided by the Ministry of Interior, which is the competent authority under the Ordinance, strictly in accordance with law.
(KHADIM HUSSAIN SOOMRO) JUDGE
S.Akhtar