2026 PLP 755 (SCMR)
SADDAM HUSSAIN — Petitioner Versus The STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2026 PLP 755 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Athar Minallah, Irfan Saadat Khan and Malik Shahzad Ahmad Khan, JJ |
| Parties | SADDAM HUSSAIN — Petitioner Versus The STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2026 PLP 755 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2026 PLP 755 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Athar Minallah, Irfan Saadat Khan and Malik Shahzad Ahmad Khan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2026 PLP 755 (SCMR) (SADDAM HUSSAIN — Petitioner Versus The STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Arshad Hussain Yousafzai, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
(Against judgment dated 15.08.2025 of the Peshawar High Court, Peshawar passed in Crl. Misc. B.A. No. 2423-P of 2025).
S. 497(2)
Prevention of Smuggling of Migrants Act (XVIII of 2018), Ss. 3 & 6
Constitution of Pakistan, Art.185(3)
Receiving money, etc. for providing foreign employment, smuggling of migrants
Allegations against the accused/petitioner was that he was involved in the offence for receiving money for providing foreign employment
Petitioner was alleged to have been involved in the commission of the offence under the Act of 2018
Prosecution's case was that the petitioner was nominated in the crime report pursuant to the information received by the Federal Investigation Authority
Allegedly, the premises from which passports and other incriminating documents were taken into possession were owned by the petitioner
Deputy Attorney General, who was present along with the Investigating Officer, was not able to show that sufficient incriminating material had been collected in order to connect the petitioner with the alleged offences
At this stage, prima facie, a case for further inquiry was made out because the question whether the offences alleged to have been committed were attracted to the extent of the petitioner required further probe
Investigation to the extent of the petitioner had been concluded and his further incarceration would not serve any useful purpose
Petition was converted into an appeal and the same was allowed, in circumstances.
S. 497
Constitution of Pakistan, Art.185(3)
Scope
Observations made in the bail orders are tentative in nature and shall not, in any manner, prejudice the trial proceedings. Raja Shafqat Abbasi, DAG along with Umar Saeed, S.I. for the State.
Judgment & Decree
ATHAR MINALLAH, J.
The petitioner has sought leave against the judgment dated 15.08.2025 of the High Court, whereby his petition seeking post-arrest bail was dismissed.
2. The petitioner was nominated in Crime Report No. 135 of 2025 dated 02.07.2025 registered at P.S. FIA/AHTC, Peshawar, for commission of the alleged offences under sections 3/6 of the Prevention of Smuggling of Migrants Act, 2018 ('Act of 2018'). His post arrest bail was declined by the Special Judge (Central) Anti-Corruption and Immigration; Peshawar vide order dated 25.07.2025 while the High Court has dismissed his petition vide the impugned judgment dated 15.08.2025.
2. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Deputy Attorney General for the State. The investigating officer of the case is also in attendance.
3. The petitioner was alleged to have been involved in the commission of the offence under the Act of 2018. It is the prosecution's case that the petitioner was nominated in the crime report pursuant to the information received by the FIA. It is alleged that the premises from which passports and other incriminating documents were taken into possession are owned by the petitioner. The learned Deputy Attorney General, who was present along with the investigating officer, was not able to show that sufficient incriminating material has been collected in order to connect the petitioner with the alleged offences. At this stage, prima facie, a case for further inquiry is made out because the question whether the offences alleged to have been committed are attracted to the extent of the petitioner requires further probe. The investigation to the extent of the petitioner has been concluded and his further incarceration would not serve any useful purpose.
4. In view of the above, this petition is converted into an appeal and the same is allowed. The petitioner is admitted to post-arrest bail subject to furnishing bail bounds in the sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- (five hundred thousand ) which one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial court. Needless to mention that the observations made in this order are tentative in nature and shall not, in any manner, prejudice the trial proceedings. JK/S-51/SC Appeal allowed.