Legal Principle & Question Decided

Ruling Summary: This decision was rendered by the Islamabad High Court, officially reported as 2026 IHC 248792. In this matter between ZULFIQAR ALI PARWAZ and THE STATE, 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: Islamabad High Court (Honourable Mr. Justice Khadim Hussain Soomro) AUTHOR JUDGE: Honourable Mr. Justice Khadim Hussain Soomro DECISION DATE: 19-JAN-2026 CASE NO: Criminal Revision-2-2026 CITATION: 2026 IHC 248792 PARTIES: ZULFIQAR ALI PARWAZ VS THE STATE LAW / SECTION: - SUBJECT: Against Interim Order, REMARKS: Petitioner: who is the complainant, application for transfer of pending bail petition has been dismissed. Hence this revision. ============================================================ ORDER SHEET ISLAMABAD HIGH COURT, ISLAMABAD (JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT)

Crl. Revision No. 02 of 2026 Zulfiqar Ali Parwaz Vs The State, etc S. No. of order/ proceedings Date of order/ proceedings Order with signature of Judge and that of parties or counsel where necessary. 19.01.2026 Petitioner in person. Mr. Zameer Hussain Malik Advocate for respondents Ms. Habiba Khalid, State Counsel. Mr. Toheed A. Jafri ASI/I.O.

KHADIM HUSSAIN SOOMRO J: - Through this Crl. Revision, the petitioner has impugned the order dated 18.12.2025, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, West Islamabad, whereby the application for transfer of pre -arrest bail of respondents Nos. 2 & 3 was dismissed. 2. At the very outset, the petitioner in person submits that he is the complainant in ca se FIR No.430/2024, u/s 380/506 (ii)/34 PPC, PS Margalla, Islamabad, registered against respondents No.2 & 3, that said respondents filed pre -arrest bail in the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge (GBV) Court, Islamabad - West; that , due to non -confidence in the said court, the petitioner filed an application for transfer of pre - arrest bail to any other Court, but the same was dismissed by the impugned order without any reason, and even a cost of Rs. 5000/ - has been imposed upon the petitioner. 3. Petitioner in person submits that the order passed by the learned lower court is an illegal order 2 Crl. Revision No. 02 of 2026

and liable to be set as ide; that the learned lower court has committed irregularity and illegality while passing the impugned order; that the impugned order is perverse, erroneous , and has resulted in a great miscarriage of justice. Further submits that valuable rights are involved in the matter. 4. Conversely, lea rned counsel for the respondents resisted the petition and prayed for its dismissal. 5. I have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record with their able assistance. 6. It is a settled principle of law that the transfer of a pending case from a competent Court cannot be claimed as a matter of right, nor can such relief be granted as a routine or on the mere whims and wishes of a party. A case is liable to b e transferred only where the record, on the face of it, establishes that the party seeking transfer is unlikely to receive a fair and impartial trial in accordance with law. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to a rticulate any genuine, reasonable, or substantiated apprehension of bias or miscarriage of justice so as to justify the extraordinary relief of transfer. 7. This Court is conscious of the delicate balance that must be maintained: while justice must not onl y be done but must also be seen to be done, cases 3 Crl. Revision No. 02 of 2026

cannot be transferred on the basis of vague apprehensions, conjectures, or unfounded perceptions that justice may not be administered fairly. At the same time, it is equally important that the Presiding Off icer of the trial Court is protected from repeated or frivolous transfer applications, as such practice has the potential to overawe or pressure the court and may ultimately result in tilting the scale s of justice, thereby undermining judicial independence and the confidence of litigants in the justice delivery system. 8. The Lahore High Court has reiterated these principles in Abdul Latif & another v. Syed Kausar Ali Shah Bukhari and another (2022 P Cr.LJ 741 Lahore) and Ahmad Nawaz & two others v. Akhtar Hussain & another (2004 YLR 885), wherein it has been held that transfer applications founded on mere apprehensions, without cogent material on record, are liable to be dismissed. 9. In view of the foregoing discussion and the settled legal position, this court finds no substance in the transfer application, as no reasonable or genuine apprehension of bias or denial of fair trial has been made out. The application appears to be based on conjectures and unfounded perceptions, which do not warrant the exercis e of extraordinary jurisdiction for the transfer of the case. Consequently, the transfer application is dismissed. The trial Court shall proceed 4 Crl. Revision No. 02 of 2026

with the matter strictly in accordance with law and decide the same on its own merits, without being influenced by any observations made herein.

(Khadim Hussain Soomro) JUDGE

S.Akhtar

Related Legal Research & Directories

• Browse all judgments from Islamabad High Court
• Search Pakistani statutes: Constitution of Pakistan 1973, PPC, CrPC, CPC & Family Laws
• Analyze this case with Al Wakeelo AI Legal Assistant