Eight reportable judgments in the 24–27 July 2026 window (with two Sindh stragglers recovered from the earlier portal outage) — one from the Supreme Court, three from the Lahore High Court and four from the Sindh High Court (the Federal Constitutional Court and Islamabad High Court returned no in-window entries).

Supreme Court of Pakistan

• Chairman NAB v. Adeel Ahmed — jurisdiction is conferred only by the Constitution or by law and can neither be assumed nor abdicated, so once Article 175F and section 32A of the National Accountability Ordinance transferred the appellate jurisdiction in accountability matters to the Federal Constitutional Court, that transfer carried with it the ancillary power to grant bail, leaving the Supreme Court with no residual jurisdiction over appeals, bail, suspension of sentence or any interlocutory relief in NAB cases. Jurisdictional objection upheld; all pending NAB petitions and appeals held to stand transferred by fiction of law to the Federal Constitutional Court.

Lahore High Court

• Iftikhar Ahmed v. The State — infirmity under the third proviso to section 497 CrPC is a distinct and independent ground of bail, separate from bail on medical grounds, resting on functional incapacity to endure incarceration rather than on diagnosable illness, and where a jail report confirms infirmity the court may grant bail without inquiring into the severity of the condition. Post-arrest bail allowed on the ground of infirmity (the petitioner suffering from Parkinsonism).
• Muhammad Tahir v. The State — the mere transfer of funds into an account bearing the accused’s name proves nothing unless directly connected to his involvement or to an organised group, the law permitting no conviction on presumption and casting no duty on an accused to justify every transaction, particularly where the investigation itself records that the account was operated by another. Post-arrest bail allowed as a case of further inquiry, with an extended judicial checklist for prosecutions under the Prevention of Smuggling of Migrants Act 2018.
• Manazir Ali v. The State — there is no forensic requirement that an offender’s DNA appear in both the sperm and the epithelial (non-sperm) fractions of a sexual-assault sample; the two are produced by differential extraction for different purposes, and a matching profile from the sperm fraction alone is strong evidence where validated methods and quality standards were followed and it is read with the whole record. Appeal against a section 376 PPC conviction dismissed and the 25-year sentence maintained.

Sindh High Court

• Pakistan National Shipping Corporation v. Ashiq Ali — where the employer’s own retirement letter ties release of dues to the conclusion of pending proceedings, limitation does not run from the date of retirement, an acquittal recorded after exhaustive appreciation of the evidence is not a “technical” one and forecloses re-agitation of the same allegations by counter-claim, and an uncertified computer-generated statement cannot found a monetary claim under Article 46-A of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984. Appeal disposed of; the decree modified as to medical allowance and sums already paid but otherwise maintained, including damages of Rs.2.5 million with mark-up at ten percent.
• Mst. Javeria v. Muhammad Ali — claims arising out of a matrimonial relationship fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Family Court where the wife resides, with sections 16 to 20 CPC displaced altogether, and a cause of action for recovery of wrongfully detained movables is composite, crystallising on the demand and refusal rather than the original taking. Petition allowed; the plaint in a husband’s civil suit for recovery of cash, gold and documents ordered returned for presentation before the court of competent jurisdiction.
• Mst. Samreen v. Muhammad Imran Khan — the primary burden of establishing the relationship of landlord and tenant rests on the landlord throughout, a mere denial of tenancy neither relieving him of that burden nor shifting it, and production of a title deed establishes ownership but does not by itself establish a letting, so a Rent Controller has no jurisdiction absent a proven tenancy. Petition allowed; the appellate order set aside and the Rent Controller’s dismissal of the rent application restored.
• Ms. Aisha Qazi v. Irshad Ali Shah — an executing court cannot go behind the decree to add relief or re-determine liability and must execute it as it stands even if erroneous, and the statutory bar in section 14(3) of the Family Courts Act 1964 on any appeal or revision against an interim family order cannot be circumvented by invoking Article 199, constitutional interference being confined to a basic jurisdictional defect. Petition dismissed; the Family Court’s refusal of enhanced maintenance upheld.