2026 P Cr. L J 413

 2026 P Cr. L J 413

[Lahore]

Before Muhammad Amjad Rafiq, J

SAIF ALI---Petitioner

Versus

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, LAHORE and others---Respondents

Writ Petition No. 72925 of 2024, decided on 20th October. 2025.

Punjab Special Protection Unit Act (II of 2016)---

----Ss. 3 & 5--- Punjab Witness Protection Act (XXI of 2018), Ss. 4 & 5---

Police Order (22 of 2002), Arts. 30 & 127--- Police Rules, 1934, Rr.2.9,

2.13 & 18.20--- Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199--- Constitutional

petition--- Police protection--- District Intelligence Committee (DIC)---

Recommendations--- Petitioner claimed to be a well to do

businessman who had been a witness in multiple criminal cases

registered by his family and he faced life threats--- Plea raised by

petitioner was that he should be provided police protection---

Authorities declined police protection to petitioner on the report of

District Intelligence Committee--- Validity--- All of the measures

under Policy of Home Department; Punjab Special Protection Unit

Act 2016 (if operative); Police Order, 2002; Police Rules, 1934; and

Punjab Witness Protection Act, 2018 favoured the petitioner to be

provided police protection--- Report of District Intelligence

Committee was not sine qua non for providing police protection to

citizen of Pakistan if he requiredpolice protection in any situation

which endangered his life--- District Intelligence Committee is

operating only to post cautions to Deputy Commissioners concerned

to provide police protection to any person in order to avoid law and

order situation--- Police on its own is legally competent to provide

security or protection to any person under the law--- Statute on the

subject always surpasses every policy on ground because police only

represents a suggestive process--- Matter of police protection is to be

taken by Police establishment independent of District Intelligence

Committee s recommendation under the laws and Rules---

Recommendation to provide protection to any person by District

Intelligence Committee was on administrative side--- High Court

directed Inspector General of Police (Provincial Police Officer) to

provide police protection to petitioner immediately--- Constitutional

petition was allowed, in circumstances.

Mst. Amina Begum and others v. Mehar Ghulam Dastgir PLD 1978 SC

220; Hubdar Hussain Malik v. Deputy Commissioner Chakwal and another 2020 SCMR 1507 and Riaz Hanif Rahi v. Federation of Pakistan

and others PLD 2020 Isl. 175 ref.

Nadeem Shibli for Petitioner.

Ms. Khalida Parveen, Additional Avocate General with Muhammad

Sibtain, DSP and Imran S.I for Respondents.

ORDER

MUHAMMAD AMJAD RAFIQ, J.---Petitioner seeks police protection

with the assertions that he is dealing in food items and had taken on

lease some franchises at Motorway (M2) in District Sheikhupura to

Kalarkahar, District Chakwal, with a tuck shop leased out by MORE Pvt

Ltd Company in the name and style of Bake and Bite at rest area Pindi

Bhattian in RD-109 Motorway (M2-South), where on 19.05.2021 he

witnessed the murder of his employee Ishfaaq Hussain son of Ata

Muhammad during a dacoity and on registration of FIR bearing No.184

under sections 302/458/109/392/411 P.P.C at Police Station Kaseesay

Hafizabad, he is on the hit list of dacoits.

Further, in the year 2022, Amanat Ali Advocate High Court, his

brother-in-law along, his wife (real sister of the petitioner), namely,

Hafiza Shabana Bibi and their innocent daughter were brutally

slaughtered/murdered; FIR bearing No.1023 of 2022 under sections

302/34 P.P.C stood registered at Police Station Chung Lahore wherein

the petitioner is a star witness. Ashiq one of the accused of such FIR,

was later eliminated through encounter, whereupon on the complaint

of Farooq Asghar Awan, Inspector CIA, FIR bearing No.1457 of 2022

was registered at Police Station Chung, Lahore, due to which petitioner

is receiving threats from the relatives of said Ashiq. Another incident

for abduction of his only minor son by the members of a Thug Gang

was formalized through FIR No.261 of 2023 at Police Station Saddar

Sheikhupura. Amin, another accused involved in the murder of his

brother-in-law, sister and the kid, tasted his death along with his wife

within the area of Police Station Islampura, Lahore and petitioner was

booked in FIR bearing No.3155 of 2023 registered on 13.07.2023 for

such occurrence, though on the alleged day of occurrence he was in

Cantt. area Peshawar.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner (to be called as LCP) submitted

that petitioner approached the police hierarchy at district Lahore for

protection to his life and family members when he was advised rather

directed to curtail his movement within Lahore city due to an

apparent threat and danger to his life, but his demand of a security

guard on payment of requisite fee was declined. Hence, this petition. 3. LCP urged that police protection is being provided to the officers

of local administration, police, local MNAs and MPAs and to the

eminent persons from all walks of life but same was refused to the

petitioner, and despite number of directions issued by this Court;

neither he was ever heard by Deputy Commissioner nor the District

Intelligence Committee (DIC), but every time his request was turned

down without assigning any reasons. Discrimination was also claimed

while comparing the case of petitioner with Sahibzada Zahid

Mehmood Qasmi (to be called as SZMQ ) who was provided requisite

police protection.

4. Report was submitted by Inspector General of Police, (Respondent

No.5) with an indirect reference of DIG Operations who was directed

to place the case of petitioner before the DIC and to take further action

in the light of recommendations. In response DIG Operations Lahore

reported that earlier a like application of the petitioner dated

17.02.2023 was placed before DIC in its meeting dated 29.04.2024

(which as per record is of 29.04.2023), and it was recommended that

petitioner can arrange two private guards at his own from a security

agency approved by the Home Department. In the report of DIG

Operations, it was also mentioned that pursuant to order in earlier

Writ Petition No. 50319/2023, his application sent to Deputy

Commissioner Lahore through letter dated 24.08.2023, was placed in

meeting of DIC held on 30.08.2023, and it was again recommended that

petitioner can arrange two private guards. In another meeting of DIC

dated 02.11.2024 his request was once again turned down that there is

no imminent/specific threat to the life and property of the petitioner.

Respondent No. 5 has also appended all above reports of DIG

Operations with his comments which are available on the record.

5. LCP responded that despite the permission by DIC, neither the

petitioner was allowed to move with private guards nor police is

providing protection in any manner. Further states that report on

behalf of respondent No. 5 is against the direction of this Court dated

26.11.2024. According to him he had assailed the decision of DIC

conveyed by DIG Operations to the Inspector General of Police through

letter No. 842/WP-Ops dated 23.10.2024 for declining police protection

to the petitioner, which shows that meetings of DIC were held on

01.03.2023, 19.04.2023, 29.04.2023 and finally on 30.08.2023, but he had

not moved any applications on 01.03.2023, 19.04.2023 or 29.04.2023.

LCP probably has misread the situation otherwise such meetings were

being held pursuant to his application dated 17.02.2023, therefore, it

cannot be accepted a padding as alleged. However, claim of

discrimination was brought on record through C.M. No. 2/2025

showing the fact that pursuant to Writ Petition No. 32060/2024 filed by

SZMQ, on order by this Court dated 23.05.2024, Deputy Commissioner Faisalabad while deciding the application provided him the requisite

protection. In reply to said CM, report was submitted by DIG

Operations Lahore that matter of SZMQ relates to Faisalabad District;

DIC of every District has its own statistics for threat assessment, and as

per information police protection earlier provided to him now stood

withdrawn. LCP alleged that report is frivolous because he had a

personal interaction with constable attached with SZMQ. Learned

Additional Advocate General intervened the situation and requested

that some time may be granted to develop a contact with CPO

Faisalabad. She later submitted report on his behalf bearing No. 946-

PAL dated 18.10.2025 which clarified the situation that on seeking

police protection, a constable/gunman was though deployed with

SZMQ vide order No. 280 dated 07.03.2025 yet his request for provision

of squad was declined by the DIC. Thus, contention that security was

withdrawn, stands falsified. For an interim relief LCP while relying on

case reported as Mst. Amina Begum and others v. Mehar Ghulam

Dastgir (PLD 1978 SC 220) had also filed CM. No. 4 for permitting the

petitioner to travel with private guards as conceded by the Police

hierarchy cited above, and finally, through CM. No. 5 the police

protection policy dated 26th April 2018 issued by the Government of

the Punjab Home Department was brought on record. Deputy

Commissioner Lahore has also submitted report in this writ petition

with the assertion that without being influenced from the minutes of

meeting dated 01.03.2023, 19.04.2023, 29.04.2023 and 30.08.2023, the

matter was once again concluded on 18.02.2025 in the meeting of DIC,

with same recommendations. He further contended that he is bound to

give weight to the reports/information of law enforcement agencies in

the light of judgments reported as Hubdar Hussain Malik v. Deputy

Commissioner Chakwal and another (2020 SCMR 1507) and Riaz Hanif

Rahi v. Federation of Pakistan and others (PLD 2020 Islamabad 175),

and he has no personal grudge and enmity towards any person rather

his decision is based on good faith and judicious approach.

6. Heard. Record perused.

7. Constitutional protection for right to life is not subject to any

statutory conditionalities and it would be saved at any cost. This

command is the spirit and essence of divine directions enshrined in

the Holy Quran that whoever saves one life is as if they have saved all

of humanity (5:32). This verse is used to encourage acts of kindness

and for reminding that for saving a life one must go even beyond its

private or official extent. This also requires that State should have a

passionate approach to take every suitable measure to save life of its

subject. According to the Article 7 of the Constitution of the Islamic

Republic of Pakistan 1973 ( the Constitution ), State includes Provincial

Government or any local authority; thus, they must have big heart to represent the State. With this prelude, let s see on the present day

which law or policy regulates the provision of police protection to the

individuals. At first occasion, it would be appropriate to examine the

Policy of Home Department dated 26th April, 2018 relied upon by the

Deputy Commissioner Lahore and brought on record by LCP through

CM No. 5.

8. There are 16 categories in the Policy 2018, whom either one guard

(One Head Constable and Four Constables) or two motorcycles gunmen

or one gunman is provided for security and protection; however,

additional security can also be provided depending upon the threat

assessment. The above categories include the Prime Minister, Chief

Justice of Pakistan, Chief Justice of Lahore High Court, Judges of

Superior judiciary, Federal Ministers, Chairman Senate, Speaker

National Assembly, Governor, Chief Minister, Chief Secretary,

Inspector General of Police, Senior Police Officers, Senior Bureaucrats,

Ombudsman, Advocate General, Prosecutor General, Foreign

Diplomates if on visit in Punjab and many others. However, para-4 of

the policy is relevant in this case and the categories mentioned therein

are as follows;

The eminent persons from different walks of life including main

leaders of political parties, learned Judges, Ministers, Senators,

Parliamentarians, Speakers and Deputy Speakers, religious

leaders, businessmen, media persons, lawyers, professionals and

Government servants etc. who face threats to their life from

terrorists, sectarian groups and miscreants shall be provided

security by Punjab Police as per threat assessment made and

quantum of security thereof determined by the Provincial

Intelligence Committee on the basis of recommendations of

Divisional or District Intelligence Committees. The security, so

provided, shall not be a permanent feature and shall be

reviewed on quarterly basis for enhancement, reduction or

withdrawal depending upon threat assessment by the Provincial

Intelligence Committees in the light of revised recommendations

of Divisional and District Intelligence Committees.

As per para-5, Policy further says that Home Department or

Inspector General of Police, on the basis of credible intelligence, shall,

from time to time, issue instructions to the concerned police formation

or relevant stakeholders for provision of security to a person facing

urgent security threat, at his or her residence, place of temporary stay

and place of work for a period of 30 days, subject to review thereafter

by the Provincial Intelligence Committee.

9. In para-4 of the policy, the word eminent persons do include

businessmen like the petitioner, yet neither threat assessment was made objectively by DIC with quantum pro nor rejected fact-statistics

as flew from ensued effects of FIRs cited above. Assessment must

contain the discussion on fact sheet provided by the person seeking

protection, though declining reason may not be given if disclosure

exposes the secrecy of the system for collecting information.

Functionaries are the best judge to evaluate the nature and magnitude

of threats so as to take all appropriate remedial measures/steps

required to obviate impending disaster, therefore, these are not

justiciable issues as held in a case reported as Hubdar Hussain Malik v.

Deputy Commissioner Chakwal and another (2020 SCMR 1507).

10. The regulation of process for police protection through Policy of

Home Department loses its efficacy when a statutory law is available

on the subject. The Punjab Special Protection Unit Act, 2016 stood

promulgated for the constitution of Special Protection Unit in the

Police for the purposes of providing dedicated security to the

foreigners , important persons and premises ; and, for other purposes.

Section 3 of such Act says that government shall notify the constitution

of Special Protection Unit whose administration shall vest in director

who shall be a Deputy Inspector General of Police and include other

members listed therein. Director shall discharge his function under

the supervision and control of Provincial Police Officer. Section-5 of

the Act says that the Unit shall ensure protection of foreigners,

important persons and premises as may be notified by the Provincial

Police Officer. Though there is no definition of important persons in

the Act, yet it has been left at the discretion of Provincial Police Officer

who as per section 5 of the Act can notify any person whom he

considers important at any point of time, and such power must be

exercised liberally with full scope to all who are in need. Notification

for constitution of Special Protection Unit was requisitioned; learned

Additional Advocate General states that SNE (Schedule of New

Expenditure) has been submitted to Finance Department for year

2025-26 and it is likely that the posts in Unit shall be filled in soon.

Thus, without referring the matter to DIC under the Policy of Home

Department, Director Special Protection Unit can provide police

protection directly to the people who are in need of and whom the

Provincial Police Officer has declared important persons. Even

otherwise DIC operates as a security wing for recommendation about

police protection to any of the citizens without seeking any

application.

11. Besides above referred Act, the Police Order, 2002 also caters to

the requirement of police protection. By virtue of Article 4, subject to

law, it is the duty of every police officer to protect life, property and

liberty of citizens. Article 30 of Police Order, 2002 regulates the

appointment of additional police which says that City Police Officer and District Police Officer subject to the approval of the Provincial

Police Officer, and Capital City Police Officer may appoint additional

police officers of such rank and for such time as he may deem fit for

the purposes stated in their employment orders. The employment of

additional police may be made at the request of any person reasonably

requiring such police and the cost of such employment shall be

recovered in such manner as provided under this Order or rules made

there under. Employment of additional police to keep peace or for

other purposes on the request of any person or the organization is also

permissible under the said Order subject to cost borne by them. In this

respect, Articles 126 and 127 of Police Order 2002 are referred below;

126. Employment of additional police to keep peace. (1) Capital City

Police Officer or City Police Officer and District Police Officer

subject to approval of Provincial Police Officer may on

application of any person depute any additional number of

police to keep the peace, to preserve order, to enforce any

provisions of this Order, or any other law, in respect of any

particular class or classes of offences or to perform any other

duties imposed on the police.

(2) Subject to rules, such additional police shall be employed at the

cost of the person making the application.

(3) If the person upon whose application such additional police are

employed gives one week s notice for the withdrawal of the said

police, he shall be relieved from the cost thereof at the

expiration of such notice.

(4) If there is any dispute on payment, Head of District Police on an

application by the aggrieved party may refer the matter to the

Government for final decision.

127. Employment of additional police at the cost of organizers, etc. (1)

Whenever it appears to Head of District Police that

(a) any large work which is being carried on, or any public

amusement, or event at any place is likely to impede the traffic

or to attract a large number of people; or

(b) the behaviour or a reasonable apprehension of the behaviour of

the persons employed on any railway, canal or other public

work, or in or upon any manufactory or other commercial

concern under construction or in operation at any place,

necessitates the employment of additional police at such place;

he may depute such number of additional police to the said

place for so long as the necessity to employ the additional police

shall appear to be expedient. (2) Subject to rules, the cost of such additional police shall be borne

by the organisers of such events or employers of such works or

concerns, as the case may be, at rates approved by the

appropriate government from time to time.

Such appointment of additional police is further regulated through

Rules 2.9 to 2.13 of the Police Rules 1934. Similarly, concept of

appointment of personal guards for dignitaries by the Police

establishment finds its place in Rule 18.20 of the Police Rules, 1934.

12. Though petitioner being businessman was entitled for police

protection due to blatant threats yet being witness in above cited FIRs,

could have also been protected by Witness Protection Unit established

under the Punjab Witness Protection Act, 2018 which was legislated to

provide for measures to protect witnesses or other persons connected

with the investigation, prosecution and trial of certain criminal

proceedings relating to the offence of terrorism, sexual offence or any

other serious offence; and, to provide for ancillary matters. Three out

of four FIRs referred above were of serious offences because such Act

defines serious offence as an offence punishable with death or

imprisonment for life or for a term exceeding seven years and

includes a sexual offence but does not include an offence of terrorism.

Under said law, the government in consultation with Witness

Protection Board has established Witness Protection Unit which

consists of two categories. Unit-I relating to the offences of terrorism;

and Unit-II relating to the serious offences which can provide

protection to witness after considering the following matters while

determining the risk of a person:

(a) the risk profile of the person involved;

(b) the nature and gravity of the threat to that person; and

(c) the measures required to eliminate or reduce the risk at the

minimum possible cost.

with following non-court measures;

(a) provision of close protection service; (b) lodging in a safe house;

(c) temporary or permanent relocation at a safe place; (d)

change of identity; (e) concealment of identity of the persons

involved in the criminal proceedings; and (f) providing financial

assistance to a protected person who is unable to undertake

regular employment or when his freedom of movement is

severely curtailed as a result of protection to him.

13. All of the measures like, under the Policy of Home Department,

the Punjab Special Protection Unit Act, 2016 (if becomes operative),

Police Order, 2002, Police Rule, 1934 and the Punjab Witness Protection Act, 2018 favour the petitioner to be provided police

protection but it has simply been declined on the report of DIC, which

is not sine qua non for providing police protection to the citizen of

Pakistan if he requires in any situation which endangers his life. DIC is

operating in our system only to post cautions to the Deputy

Commissioners concerned to provide police protection to any person

in order to avoid law and order situation, otherwise, Police at its own

is legally competent to provide security or protection to any person

under the laws cited above. Statute on the subject always surpasses

every on ground policy, because police only represents a suggestive

process; therefore, it is held that matter of police protection is to be

taken by the Police Establishment independent of DIC s

recommendation under the laws and Rules cited above. However,

recommendation to provide protection to any person by DIC shall

remain operative on the administrative side.

14. Consequently, this writ petition is allowed and Inspector General

of Police (Provincial Police Officer) Respondent No. 5 is directed to

provide police protection to the petitioner immediately.

MH/S-84/L Petition allowed.