Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Official Citation: 2026 IHC 262539
Court / Jurisdiction: Islamabad High Court
Parties: Humayun Rind Baloch vs The State etc.
Ruling Summary: This decision was rendered by the Islamabad High Court, officially reported as 2026 IHC 262539. In this matter between Humayun Rind Baloch 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.
COURT: Islamabad High Court (Honourable Mr. Justice Khadim Hussain Soomro) AUTHOR JUDGE: Honourable Mr. Justice Khadim Hussain Soomro DECISION DATE: 08-JUN-2026 CASE NO: Criminal Revision-44-2026 CITATION: 2026 IHC 262539 PARTIES: Humayun Rind Baloch VS The State etc. LAW / SECTION: - SUBJECT: Against Interim Order, REMARKS: Crl. Revision in FIR No. 244/2025 dated 28.08.2025 U/s 20, 21, 24, 24A PECA 2016 r/w 509, 294, 109, 34 PPC P.S. NCCIA CCRC, Islamabad ============================================================ ORDER SHEET IN THE ISLAMABAD HIGH COURT, ISLAMABAD JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Crl. Revision No. 44/2026 Humayun Rind Baloch Versus The State S. No. of order/ proceedings Date of order/ Proceedings Order with signature of Judge and that of parties or counsel where necessary. 08.06.2026 Petitioner in person. Mr. Sarfraz Rauaf, Assistant Attorney General.
Khadim Hussain Soomro J :- Through this writ petition, It is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to:
"a). Admit the present Revision petition, call for the record of the case and after hearing the parties set aside the impugned order dated 0903.2026 to the extent I refuses to release the I Phone 13 Pro Max (Golden Color), 05 Tola Gold and Rs. 3,50,000/- cash, b) Direct the I.O/SHO, NCCIA, CCRC, Islamabad to hand over the aforesaid articles to the petitioner forthwith as deemed appropriate by this Hon'ble Court,
c) Grant interim relief by directing the I.O to preserve the I Phone 13 Pro Max in its origi9nal condition and not to carry out any further activity on it till the final disposal of this revision
d) Grant any other relief which this Hon 'ble Court deems fit and proper in the interest of justice."
2. The petitioner, appearing in person, submits that his wife and son were arrested in the relevant FIR and, at the time of their arrest, the officials of NCCIA took into possession different articles, including the above-mentioned mobile phone, gold ornaments , and cash amount. He contends that the said articles belong to him and his family, have no nexus with the commission of the alleged offence, and are not required for the purpose of trial. It is further argued 2 Crl. Revision No. 44/2026
that the learned trial Court has already ordered the release of certain electronic devices; therefore, refusal to release the I Phone 13 Pro Max is discriminatory and without lawful justification. According to him, a mere positive forensic report cannot be made a ground to permanently deprive a lawful owner of his property. 3. Conversely, the learned Assistant Attorney General opposed the petition and submitted that the iPhone 13 Pro Max was duly taken into possession through a recovery memo, which forms part of the investigation record. He further submits that the said mobile phone was sent for forensic examination and the forensic report has been found positive, as relevant material was recovered therefrom. It is also submitted that the mobile phone is case property and its release at this stage may prejudice the prosecution's case. As regards the claim of gold ornaments and cash amount, the learned Assistant Attorney General submits that the same have not been shown to have been recovered by the Investigating Officer during the course of investigation. 4. I have heard the arguments of the petitioner and learned Assistant Attorney General and have perused the record with their able assistance. 5. The record reflects that the iPhone 13 Pro Max was recovered during the investigation, and a recovery memo in that regard was prepared by the Investigating Officer. The said mobile phone was 3 Crl. Revision No. 44/2026
thereafter sent to the forensic laboratory for analysis. According to the forensic report, relevant material, including defamatory and incriminating material, was found in the said device. In such circumstances, the mobile phone has assumed the character of case property and also constitutes a material piece of evidence for the purposes of investigation and trial. At this preliminary stage, when the evidentiary value of the recovered device is yet to be examined by the learned trial Court, its release to the petitioner may create a reasonable apprehension of tampering, alteration, deletion, or loss of digital evidence. 6. The learned trial Court has passed the impugned order after taking into consideration the nature of the recovered mobile phone, its forensic result , and its relevance to the pending proceedings. No illega lity, material irregularity, jurisdictional defect , or perversity has been pointed out which may warrant interference by this Court in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction. 7. For the foregoing reasons, the instant criminal revision, being devoid of mer it, is hereby dismissed. However, the Investigating Officer shall ensure preservation of the iPhone 13 Pro Max and its digital contents in accordance with the law, maintaining a proper chain of custody, so that no prejudice is caused to either party during trial.
(KHADIM HUSSAIN SOOMRO) JUDGE S.Akhtar