IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(Appellate Jurisdiction) 
 
 
PRESENT: 
Mr. Justice Gulzar Ahmed, HCJ 
Mr. Justice Umar Ata Bandial 
Mr. Justice Mazhar Alam Khan Miankhel 
Mr. Justice Sajjad Ali Shah 
Mr. Justice Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed 
 
 
Criminal Petition No.299 of 2020  
(Against the order dated 20.3.2020 
passed by the Islamabad High Court 
Islamabad in Cr. Misc.  No.214/2020) 
 
Raja Muhammad Nadeem 
 
 
…Petitioner(s) 
 
 
 
 
 
Versus 
 
The State and another 
…Respondent(s) 
 
For the Petitioner: 
 
Syed Nayyab Hassan Gardezi, ASC 
 
 
 
 
 
Syed Rifaqat Hussain Shah, AOR along 
 
 
 
 
 
with petitioner 
 
For the Federation: 
 
Mr. Khalid Javed Khan,  
 
 
 
 
 
Attorney General for Pakistan 
 
 
 
 
 
Mr. Sohail Mehmood,  
 
 
 
 
 
Deputy Attorney General 
 
 
 
 
 
Ms. Shireen M. Mazari,  
 
 
 
 
 
Minister for Human Rights 
 
 
 
 
 
Dr. Safi Muhammad Mali, D.G. Health 
 
 
 
 
 
M/o N.H.S. 
 
 
 
 
 
Saeed Ullah Khan Niazi, Joint Secretary 
 
 
 
 
 
(Admn.) 
 
 
 
 
 
Asif Suhail, Director Legal 
 
 
 
 
 
Khalid Mehmood, Deputy Secretary, 
 
 
 
 
 
Ministry of Interior 
 
 
 
 
 
Nisar Ahmed, Section Officer 
 
For Islamabad Capital  
Mr. Niaz Ullah Khan Niazi, Advocate 
Territory   
 
 
General  
 
 
 
 
 
Mr. Amer Ali Ahmed,  
 
 
 
 
 
Chief  Commissioner 
 
 
 
 
 
Mr. Hamza Shafqaat,  
 
 
 
 
 
Deputy Commissioner 
 
 
 
 
 
Waseem Ahmed Khan,  
 
 
 
 
 
Assistant Deputy Commissioner 
 
 
 
 
 
Waqar ud Din Syed, D.I.G. (Operations) 
 
 
 
 
 
Azhar Hussain Shah, DSP (Legal) 
 
For Government   
 
Mr. Salman Talibudin, Advocate General  
of Sindh (via video link): 
Mr. Sibtain Mehmood, Addl.A.G. 
Dr. Fayyaz Ul Hassan Shah, PG 
 
 
 
 
 
Mr. Muhammad Usman Chachar, ACS (Home) 
 
 
 
 
 
Mr. Nusrat Mengan, I.G (Prisons) 
 
 
 
 
 
Mr. Zahid Abbasi, Secretary Health 
Criminal Petition No.299 of 2020  
 
 
2 
For Government   
 
Mr. Shan Gul, Advocate General  
of Punjab:  
 
 
Ch. Faisal Fareed  
 
 
 
 
 
Additional Advocate General  
 
 
 
 
 
Mr. Ahmed Raza Gillani,  
 
 
 
 
 
Additional Prosecutor General  
 
 
 
 
 
Mirza Shahid Saleem Baig, I.G. (Prisons) 
 
 
 
 
 
Malik Shaukat Feroz, D.I.G. (Prisons), 
 
 
 
 
 
Rawalpindi Region 
 
 
 
 
 
Rana Zeeshan,  
 
 
 
 
 
Additional Secretary (Prisons) 
 
 
 
 
 
Muhammad Zaman, D.S.P. (Prisons)  
 
 
 
 
 
Saqib Nazir, Superintendent Adyala Jail 
 
 
 
 
 
Tahir Siddique,  
 
 
 
 
 
Assistant Superintendent Adyala Jail 
 
 
 
 
 
Amir Bashir,  
 
 
 
 
 
Assistant Superintendent Adyala Jail 
 
 
 
 
 
Majid Iqbal, Additional Secretary Punjab 
 
 
 
 
 
Iqbal Hussain,  
 
 
 
 
 
Special Secretary Home Punjab 
 
 
 
 
 
Adnan Yousaf, Sr. Law Officer 
 
 
 
 
Mr. Arif Kamal Noor,  
 
 
 
 
Prosecutor General Punjab  
 
 
 
 
(via video link from Lahore Branch Registry) 
 
For Government of 
 
Mr. Shumail Butt, Advocate General 
K.P.K. 
 
 
 
(via video link from Peshawar Branch Registry) 
 
 
 
 
Khuda Bakhsh, Special Secretary Health 
 
 
 
 
Dr. Shaheen Afridi,  
 
 
 
 
Additional Director General, Health 
 
 
 
 
Masood ur Rehman,  
 
 
 
 
Inspector General (Prisons) 
 
 
 
 
Ikram Ullah Khan, Home Secretary  
 
 
 
 
(all appeared via video link from Peshawar  
 
 
 
 
 
Branch Registry) 
 
For Government of 
 
Mr. Arbab Muhammad Tahir,  
Balochistan 
 
 
Advocate General 
 
 
 
 
 
(via video link from Quetta Branch Registry) 
 
 
 
 
 
Mr. Ayaz Khan Swati,  
 
 
 
 
 
Additional Advocate General Punjab 
 
 
 
 
Capt. (Retd.)Zafar Tahir Abbasi,  
 
 
 
 
Special Secretary Health 
 
 
 
 
 
Malik Yousaf, Inspector General (Prisons) 
 
 
 
 
 
Hameed Ullah Pechi, A.I.G. Prisons 
 
 
 
 
 
Niamat Ullah Khan Battazai,  
 
 
 
 
 
Prosecutor General 
 
 
 
 
 
Mushtaq Qazi,  
 
 
 
 
 
Additional Prosecutor General 
 
 
 
 
 
Abdul Lateef Kakar, 
 
 
 
 
 
Additional Prosecutor General 
 
 
 
 
(all appeared via video link from Quetta Branch 
 
 
 
 
 
Registry) 
 
 
 
 
 
Syed Baqar Shah, State Counsel. 
 
For Government  
 
Mr. Muhammad Iqbal, Advocate General 
of Gilgit-Baltistan 
 
Capt. (R) Ali Asghar,  
 
 
 
 
 
Inspector General (Prisons) 
 
 
Criminal Petition No.299 of 2020  
 
 
3 
For N.A.B.  
 
 
Mr. Muhammad Hassan Akbar,  
 
 
 
 
Additional Prosecutor General 
 
For A.N.F.  
 
 
Raja Inaam Amin Minhas,  
 
 
 
 
 
Special Prosecutor  
 
Amicus Curiae 
 
 
Sh. Zameer Hussain, ASC 
 
From S.C.B.A.P.  
 
Syed Qalb-e-Hassan, ASC/President 
From P.B.C. 
 
 
Mr. Zulfiqar Abbas Naqvi, ASC/Member 
 
 
 
 
 
Mr. Muhammad Akram Khaksar, V.C. 
From P.H.C.B.A.  
 
Mr. Abdul Latif Afridi, ASC/President 
In C.M.A. 399/2020 
 
Mr. Amjad Raza Bhatti, ASC 
In C.M.A. 406/2020 
 
In person 
In C.M.A. 414/2020 
 
Mr. Talat Mehmood Zaidi, ASC 
In C.M.A. 415/2020 
 
Mr. Hashmat Ali Habib, ASC 
In C.M.A. 417/2020 
 
Khawaja Haris Ahmed, Sr. ASC 
 
 
 
 
 
Mr. Munawar Iqbal Duggal, ASC 
 
Date of hearing: 
07.04.2020. 
 
ORDER 
 
 
 
   Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed, J.- 
 A 
severe/acute 
respiratory syndrome is modern day reminder of past calamities, 
endured by the mankind; identified as Corona Virus disease 2019 
(Covid-19), erupted in December 2019 in the Chinese City of Wohan, 
Metropolis of Hubai Province; it took humanity by surprise across the 
globe through human movement with no available treatment; the World 
Health Organization swiftly declared the disease as “Pandemic”; highly 
infectious, it attacks respiratory system with fallouts on vital organs; 
inbuilt immune system is the only defence against the disease with toll 
of the vulnerable, even in countries equipped with best health care 
system has been phenomenally high; no respite is within sight; isolation 
and dispersions of individuals are the suggested defences. It is in this 
backdrop that various High Courts in the country, Islamabad High 
Court being on the top, passed omnibus orders for the release of 
accused/convicts, lodged in different prisons, an issue taken up by the 
Court in the captioned petition filed by Raja Muhammad Nadeem, as 
“Pro bono Publico”.  
2. 
 
Islamabad High Court Islamabad, assuming jurisdiction in 
Crl. Misc. No.214/2020 titled as The State Vs. District Administration, 
vide impugned order dated 20.3.2020 issued the following directions:-  
 
a) 
The under trial prisoners alleged to have committed 
offences falling within the ambit of the non-prohibitory 
clause are admitted to bail, subject to furnishing such 
surety or security as may be deemed appropriate by an 
Criminal Petition No.299 of 2020  
 
 
4 
officer 
authorized 
in 
this 
regard 
by 
the 
Deputy 
Commissioner, Islamabad Capital Territory. The latter in 
consultation with the concerned incharge of Police Station 
shall ensure that the release on bail will not pose threat to 
public safety. They will endeavor to facilitate release of 
prisoners. It is clarified that this order is confined to those 
prisoners who’s cases are pending before courts and 
related to police stations under jurisdiction of the Islamabad 
High Court. It is further clarified that this order shall also 
cover those cases in which bail  has been refused because 
the declaration of emergency and the prevention of 
outbreak of corona virus is definitely a fresh ground. 
b) 
Before releasing a prisoner, proper screening shall be 
conducted by authorized officials nominated by the Ministry 
of National Health Services and Coordination, Government 
of Pakistan or the Director General (Health), Government of 
Pakistan, as the case may be. The officials shall also 
ensure screening of fresh admittance. 
c) 
The learned District and Sessions Judge (West), Islamabad  
shall nominate learned Judicial Officers to facilitate and 
guide the Deputy Commissioner in processing the cases 
pursuant to this order. 
d) 
Since time is of essence, therefore, this Court expects that 
the exercise pursuant to this order shall be completed at the 
earliest, preferably before 24-03-2020 and report submitted 
to the Registrar of this Court 
e) 
The 
Inspector 
General 
of 
Police 
and 
the 
Deputy 
Commissioner, Islamabad Capital Territory shall ensure 
that unnecessary arrests are not made by the Investigating 
Officers having regard to the law laid down by the august 
Supreme Court in the cases titled ‘Muhammad Bashir v. 
Station House officer, Okara Cantt and others’ (PLD 2007 
SC 530) and ‘Mst. Sughran Bibi v. The State’ (PLD 2018 SC 
595). 
f) 
The Deputy Commissioner, Islamabad Capital Territory 
shall identify such prisoners who are eligible to be 
considered for release under the Prison Rules, the Probation 
of Offenders Ordinance, 1960 and section 410(1) of the 
Cr.P.C. After identifying the eligible prisoners, their 
respective cases shall be processed under the relevant 
laws. 
 
Pursuant to the above directions, 292 prisoners were released 
overnight.  
3. 
 
Release of 519 prisoners in the Province of Sindh has been 
far more astounding; pursuant to some verbal direction, genesis 
whereof is a mystery, except the following press release dated 
26.3.2020, issued by the Registrar of the High Court of Sindh:- 
“It is to inform that considering the present scenario of spreading of 
pandemic Coronavirus, on the direction of Hon’ble Chief Justice, 
Mr. Justice Ahmed Ali M. Shaikh, 829 UTPs have been released 
from the jails of Province of Sindh by the District Courts in the 
cases of lesser punishment.” 
 
In pursuance whereof, Sessions Judges of the Province submitted 
reports regarding release of prisoners on the basis of lists tabulated by 
the Magistrates same day.  
4. 
 
Lahore High Court Lahore followed the suit in W.P. 
No.1648/2020 titled as Bar Association Bahawalpur Vs. Federation of 
Criminal Petition No.299 of 2020  
 
 
5 
Pakistan & others, albeit cautiously; it issued the following the 
direction:- 
g) 
As regards, the prisoners confined because of non-payment 
of amounts of fine, diyat or daman, this court has been 
informed that all possible steps will be taken for fulfillment 
of their obligations by generating funds either from Bait-ul-
Mall or inviting the financial sound persons to come in aid. 
So far as the persons undergoing civil prisons are 
concerned, the authorities shall move applications to the 
concerned courts, under whose orders they were put behind 
the bars, and those courts will decide whether their earlier 
order can be reviewed in prevalent unprecedented 
circumstances, or not; 
 
 
Injunctive order issued by this Court on 30.3.2020 closed the 
floodgates; none was released either in the Province of Punjab or 
Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Province.  
5. 
 
It is argued that there was no occasion for the High Court 
to direct wholesale release of the prisoners; no petition seeking bail was 
posted before the Court; no notice was issued either to the State or to 
the complainant/victim of crimes and above all no jurisdiction vested in 
the Court to circumvent normal statutory procedures regulating release 
of accused/convicts on bail; the entire exercise was alien to law and 
cannot be countenanced on the fears of an impending calamity to the 
detriment of principle of trichotomy of power enshrined under the 
Constitution, concluded the learned counsel. Learned Advocate 
General, ICT, Islamabad though present before the Islamabad High 
Court during the hearings has, nonetheless, opted to abandon his 
support for the impugned order. Syed Qalb-e-Hassan, Sr.ASC, 
President, Supreme Court Bar Association of Pakistan while expressing 
concerns for the safety of prisoners has urged the Court to be benign 
upon the prisoners placed in vulnerable groups; he has requested for 
issuance of a direction for screening of prisoners, particularly the new 
entrants with a view to arrest spread of the disease. The learned 
Attorney General for Pakistan, after highlighting various steps taken by 
the Government to combat the menace, has suggested following 
recommendations for release of the prisoners:- 
U.T.P.’s 
“Accused persons charged for offences under non-prohibitory 
clauses or under vagrancy law or offences carrying less than three 
years sentence may be considered for bail subject to the following:- 
 
(a) 
the benefit shall not extend in cases involving abuse/violent 
acts against children and women. 
(b) 
benefit shall first be extended to persons otherwise 
suffering from ailments or physical or mental disability. 
(c) 
benefit shall be extended to UTPs who are 55 years of age 
or older and then other male UTPs provided there is no 
history of past convictions. 
Criminal Petition No.299 of 2020  
 
 
6 
(d) 
benefit shall be extended to all women/juvenile UTPs. 
 
Bail in the above cases may be extended on personal bond. 
 
CONVICTED PERSONS 
The following categories of convicted persons may be considered 
for release by the Provincial Governments under Section 401 
Cr.P.C.: 
 
(a) 
Convicts who have otherwise completed their sentences but 
remain in jail on account of non-payment of fine/monetary 
penalty; 
(b) 
Women/juvenile convicts who have completed 75% of their 
sentence and have no history of past convictions; 
(c) 
Convicts whose remaining term in jail is six months or less 
provided offence was not violence against women or 
children; 
(d) 
Women/juvenile who were sentenced to a term of one year 
or less.” 
 
He surveyed the case law to argue that suo motu jurisdiction under the 
Constitution was not available to the High Court nor it could press into 
service the provisions of Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal 
Procedure 1898 to issue the impugned directions. Advocate Generals of 
all the Provinces joined the Attorney General for Pakistan to support 
recommendations laid by him before the Court.  
6. 
 
Heard. 
7. 
 
Being part of the global village, we are passing through 
difficult times, the pandemic is taking its toll on all spheres and walks 
of life; safe custody of prisoners is also facing challenges hitherto 
unknown, however, methods and means to manage the crises have to 
be essentially explored within a legal framework of statutory and 
judicial dispensation that amicably withstood the test of the times, 
therefore, the vires of the impugned actions is to be essentially 
examined and adjudged on legal touchstone.  Article 175(2) of the 
Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 provides as 
under:- 
“No court shall have any jurisdiction save as is or may be conferred 
on it by the Constitution or by under any law.” 
 
A High Court may possibly release an accused who is arrested or 
detained without warrant if he appears or brought before the Court, 
however, he shall not be so released if there appears reasonable 
grounds for believing that he has been guilty of an offence punishable 
with death, imprisonment for life or imprisonment for ten years, 
provided further that he shall not be released unless the prosecution 
has been given a notice to show cause as to why he should not be so 
released; what is unmistakably clear, that High Court would exercise 
Criminal Petition No.299 of 2020  
 
 
7 
such power after notice to the prosecution, that too, on case to case 
basis having regard to the facts and circumstances of each. This 
provision of law has an inbuilt mechanism for release of a woman, 
underage accused or a sick or infirm person. Similarly, there is a 
mechanism for release of convicts through suspension of execution of 
their sentences; there is no concept of en bloc omnibus release of 
prisoners on the basis of declaration of health emergency issued by the 
World Health Organization in a context altogether different. Advisory by 
the international organizations to its member states is to be routed 
through Foreign Office; no such advisory calling upon the member 
states to empty their prisons has been issued; the impugned order is 
structured upon a misdirected premises.  
 
Argument that our overcrowded prisons could be a breeding 
ground for the deadly virus is beside the mark. Barring few countries 
with low crime rates, most prisons in the world are overcrowded. An 
overcrowded prison, though an inconvenient abode, nonetheless, 
without a contaminated inmate is a safe place; instead of releasing 
them all, it is more expedient to screen the each after plugging the new 
entrants. Jail Rules laid down procedures to deal with epidemics and 
contiguous diseases, in particular, section 7 of the Prisoners Act, 1900 
provides complete mechanism to deal with a situation like one in hand:- 
 
“7.  
Temporary accommodation for prisoners.—Whenever it 
appears to the (Director of Prisons) that the number of prisoners in 
any prison is greater than can conveniently or safely be kept 
therein, and it is not convenient to transfer the excess number to 
some other prison, 
Or whenever from the outbreak of epidemic disease within 
any prison, or for any other reason, it is desirable to provide for the 
temporary shelter and safe custody of any prisoners, 
provision shall be made, by such officer and in such 
manner as the (Provincial Government) may direct, for the shelter 
and safe custody in temporary prisons of so many of the prisoners 
as cannot be conveniently or safely kept in the prison.”  
 
8. 
 
There was no juridical basis for the High Court to 
undertake an extensive exercise in a criminal miscellaneous application 
to issue directions impinging upon the whole spectrum of social life; 
292 prisoners involved in different offences is quite a number; their 
abrupt release is far from being expedient for maintenance of law and 
order in their neighborhoods; impact could be graver in the Province of 
Sindh; the High Court certainly lacked jurisdiction to invoke provisions 
of section 561-A of the Code ibid, object and scope whereof was clearly 
laid down way back in the year 1945 by the Privy Council in the case of 
Criminal Petition No.299 of 2020  
 
 
8 
Emperor Vs. Khawaja Nazeer Ahmed (AIR (32) 1945 Privy Council 18); 
in the said case, High Court’s interference with an investigative process, 
purportedly in exercise of powers under section 561-A ibid was held as 
ultra vires, a view subsequently followed by this Court in the cases of 
Shahnaz Begum v. The Hon’ble Judges of the High Court of Sind and 
Balochistan and another (PLD 1971 SC 677) and Nazir Ahmed & others 
Vs. Muhammad Shafi & another (PLD 1980 SC 6). The law is more 
vividly expounded in the case of Muhammad Ali Vs. Additional I.G. 
Faisalabad (PLD 2014 SC 753):- 
 
“The law is quite settled by now that the jurisdiction of a High 
Court under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. can be exercised only in respect 
of orders or proceedings of a court and that the provisions of 
section 561-A, Cr.P.C. have no application vis-à-vis executive or 
administrative orders or proceedings of any non-judicial forum or 
authority.” 
 
The plain language of section 561-A Cr.P.C. and the law declared by 
this Court unambiguously settles that provisions of the said section 
cannot be invoked to interfere, interrupt or divert procedural courses 
provided under the law nor it can be applied as a substitute for 
remedies otherwise available under the Statute.  
9. 
 
On the higher plane, High Court had no jurisdiction under 
the Constitution to take up the issue suo motu. Article 199 of the 
Constitution envisages an aggrieved person; there was none before the 
Court besides the bar of alternate remedy. It has been held by this 
Court in the case of Dr. Imran Khattak and another Vs. Mst. Sofia Waqar 
Khattak, PSO to the Chief Justice and others (2014 SCMR 122), as 
follows:- 
“………..…It be noted that no Judge of a High Court or the supreme 
Court is robed, crowned and sceptered as a King to do whatever 
suits his whim and caprice. In all eventualities, he is bound to 
abide 
by 
and 
adhere 
to 
the 
law 
and 
the 
Constitution 
.………………..It thus follows that the framers of the Constitution of 
1962 and those of 1973, inasmuch as it can be gathered from the 
words used in Article 98 of the former and Article 199 of the latter, 
never intended to confer Suo Motu jurisdiction on a High Court. 
Had they intended, they would have conferred it in clear terms as 
the framers of the Code of Civil Procedure under its provision 
contained in section 115 have conferred it on the High Court and 
the District Judge and the frames of the code of Criminal Procedure 
under its provisions contained in section 439 and 439-A have 
conferred it on the High Court and the sessions Judge respectively. 
Article 175(2) of the Constitution leaves no ambiguity by providing 
that “no Court shall have jurisdiction, save as is or may be 
conferred on it by the Constitution or by or under any law”. We 
would be offending the very words used in the Article by reading 
exercise of Suo Motu jurisdiction in it which cannot be read even if 
we stretch them to any extreme. It has been settled as far back as 
in 1916 in the case of Tricomdas Cooverji Bhoja v. Sri Gopingath 
Jui Thakur” (AIR 1916 Privy Council (sic)), that where the 
Criminal Petition No.299 of 2020  
 
 
9 
meanings of a provision are clear, unequivocal and incapable of 
more than one interpretation, even a long and uniform course of 
interpretation, if any, may be overruled, if it is contrary to its 
meanings. We have, therefore, no hesitation to hold that the High 
Court could not exercise Suo Motu jurisdiction under Article 199 of 
the Constitution of Pakistan. The more so when we have noticed 
that such jurisdiction has stridently been used even in the matters 
which are clearly and squarely outside the jurisdiction of a High 
Court.” 
With the exclusion of above powers, nothing is left in the field to sustain 
the impugned directions. Release of prisoners in the Province of Sindh, 
pursuant to a verbal direction, is even more disquieting.  
10. 
 
Concomitant fears, aggravated by fast expanding contagion 
would susceptibly admit perceptional acceptance of the impugned 
arrangements but the law must not be a casualty even in most extreme 
or adversarial situations; it must reign supreme and the Government in 
the given legal framework must strive hard to combat the menace; the 
Court would not be swayed by popular themes. “Judges rule on the 
basis of law, not public opinion, and they should be totally indifferent to 
the pressures of the times” (Warren Earl Burger, 15th Chief Justice of the 
United States, 1969-1986). Sheikh Zameer Hussain, learned Sr.ASC, 
amicus curiae, has rendered us valuable assistance; he opined the 
impugned directions as ultra vires, referred to Selected Writings of 
Justice HR Khanna, edited by Dr. Lokendra Malik, a portion whereof is 
reproduced, hereunder:- 
 
“The need to foster a climate of discipline and adherence to 
democratic values cannot be overemphasized if we want to 
preserve and given long life to civil liberties and human rights. 
Freedoms guaranteed by Constitution cannot be absolute. They 
have to be subject to reasonable restrictions for the sake of their 
own survival.” 
 
11. 
 
In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, we 
consider it expedient to convert this petition into one under Article 184 
(3) of the Constitution and in exercise of powers vesting in the Court 
under Article 187 thereof set aside the impugned directions issued by 
the Islamabad High Court as well as High Court of Sindh; bails granted 
to the accused/convicts, thereunder, are re-called; similarly, order 
dated 24.3.2020 passed by the Islamabad High Court in Crl. Misc. 
No.238/2020 granting bail to the accused charged under various 
provisions of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 is also set 
aside and bails granted thereunder are re-called. Likewise, order dated 
26.3.2020 passed in W.P. No.985 of 2020 by the said Court, granting 
Criminal Petition No.299 of 2020  
 
 
10 
bails to the accused involved in NAB cases is set aside and bails 
granted thereunder are re-called. Steps purportedly taken in exercise of 
powers under Section 401 of the Code ibid by the Government of Sindh 
as well as Khyber Pakhtunkhwa are also declared as without lawful 
authority, without jurisdiction and of no legal effects. Prisoners released 
in pursuance to the above mentioned orders are directed to be taken 
into custody except those falling within the categories suggested by the 
learned Attorney General for Pakistan with the concurrence of Advocate 
Generals of the Provinces. These categories we approve for conforming 
the considerations laid down by the law discussed above. Observations 
made hereinabove shall not cast their shadow on pending or future 
legal pursuits. Larger issue of combating the Pandemic shall remain 
pending.  
 
 
Chief Justice 
 
 
Judge 
 
 
Judge 
 
 
Judge 
 
 
Judge 
Islamabad, the 
7th April, 2020 
Approved for reporting 
Azmat/- 
