Legal Principle & Question Decided

Ruling Summary: This decision was rendered by the Islamabad High Court, officially reported as 2025 IHC 221135. In this matter between Muhamnmad Ayub Khan 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: Islamabad High Court (Honourable Mr. Justice Muhammad Azam Khan) AUTHOR JUDGE: Honourable Mr. Justice Muhammad Azam Khan DECISION DATE: 30-MAY-2025 CASE NO: Criminal Miscellaneous-884-2025 CITATION: 2025 IHC 221135 PARTIES: Muhamnmad Ayub Khan VS The State etc LAW / SECTION: - SUBJECT: Bail, Transitory REMARKS: Protective Bail against NAB Notice U/s 19 of National Accountability Ordinance 1999 by NAB Khyber Pakhtunkhwa ============================================================ JUDGMENT SHEET IN THE ISLAMABAD HIGH COURT, ISLAMABAD CRL. MISC. NO. 884 OF 2025 MUHAMMAD AYUB KHAN VS THE STATE AND ANOTHER Petitioner by : Barrister Muhammad Shoaib Razzaq.

Respondent by : Mr. M. Rafay, Special Public Prosecutor, NAB.

Date of hearing : 30.05.2025 MUHAMMAD AZAM KHAN, J. 1. Through the instant Petition, the Petitioner seeks protective bail in respect of a Call-Up Notice issued by the Respondent No. 2 [National Accountability Bureau (NAB) Peshawar] under Section 19 of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 (NAO) in connection with an inquiry initiated under Section 18(c) of the said Ordinance. The Call-Up Notice required the Petitioner to appear before NAB authorities, Peshawar on 29.04.2025 and 30.04.2025. 2.. The learned counsel for the Petitioner inter-alia submits that the Petitioner, a law-abiding citizen and responsible officer, has been served with a Call-Up Notice under Section 19 of the NAO, 1999 in connection with an inquiry in which he is neither named in any FIR nor directly accused of wrongdoing. While the Petitioner is fully willing to appear before the NAB authorities and cooperate in the inquiry, he harbors a serious and well-founded apprehension of arrest, harassment, or coercion without the existence of incriminating material. It is contended that the proceedings appear mala fide and are aimed at impeding the Petitioner’s professional duties. The learned counsel further submits that under well-settled principles laid down by the superior courts, including Iqbal Hussain Channa v. NAB and Ch. Zahur Elahi (1981 SCMR 935), protective bail may be granted even in the absence of a formal FIR, to safeguard the fundamental right of access to justice and fair Page 2 of 3 CRL. MISC. NO. 884 OF 2025

trial under Article 10-A of the Constitution. The Petitioner undertakes not to misuse the concession and seeks only limited protection to enable him to approach the competent forum. Therefore, it is prayed that protective bail be granted for an appropriate period. 3. The learned Special Public Prosecutor NAB has opposed the petition and submitted that the Petitioner is avoiding lawful process and has already failed to appear before NAB despite explicit directions in the Call-Up Notice. Furthermore, it has been forcefully argued that the Petitioner and his counsel are habitual litigants, having filed multiple petitions before different Benches of this Court as well as the Hon’ble Peshawar High Court, all concerning the same subject matter. The Court has been informed that:  The Petitioner filed Protective Bail Petition No. 884/25 (present petition) before this Court on 08.05.2025;  He simultaneously filed Writ Petition No. 3321-P/25 before the Peshawar High Court on 14.05.2025, which was disposed of on 15.05.2025 without grant of any interim relief;  Thereafter, the Petitioner filed CM No. 344/2025 (Stay) in the present petition on 19.05.2025 and obtained a status quo order, without disclosing the outcome of the prior proceedings before the Peshawar High Court;  Subsequently, Writ Petition No. 1844/2025 was filed before another Bench of this Court without any reference to the previously filed similar petitions. It is further pointed out that in each petition, the Petitioner and his counsel have misleadingly certified that the case is the first petition on the subject matter, thereby violating their duty of candor owed to the Court. This deliberate concealment and forum shopping amounts to a serious abuse of process, warranting not only dismissal but also adverse consequences. 4. After hearing the learned counsel and perusing the available record, it is evident that the Petitioner has not only defaulted in appearing before NAB, but has also approached this Court with unclean hands. The concealment of multiple proceedings and the deliberate misstatement regarding the petition being the first, and the suppression of material facts are all indicative of intentional misuse of judicial process. Page 3 of 3 CRL. MISC. NO. 884 OF 2025

5. It is a settled principle that protective bail is a discretionary relief granted to enable an accused to approach the competent forum of jurisdiction. However, such relief is not available to those who flout legal notices, mislead the Court, and attempt to manipulate parallel judicial proceedings. This Court cannot extend equitable relief to a party who has abused the jurisdiction of multiple Courts simultaneously, and then concealed those very proceedings to obtain interim protection through misrepresentation. 6. In view of the foregoing, the instant Petition is devoid of merit and tainted by deliberate suppression and misrepresentation. The same is accordingly dismissed with exemplary costs of Rs. 10,000, to be deposited with the Deputy Registrar (Judicial) within ten days of the receipt of attested copy of this order. The Office is directed to place a copy of this order on the relevant record of all associated petitions filed by the Petitioner.

(MUHAMMAD AZAM KHAN) JUDGE Adnan/-

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