Latest Judgments

Newly reported judgments from the Supreme Court of Pakistan, the High Courts and tribunals, added as they are processed — free, full text, updated daily. Judgments marked NEW were added in the most recent update. 4,353 judgments in total from the Balochistan High Court.

• Muhammad Murad vs Jameel Ahmed and 2 others2024 YLR 2187 · Balochistan High Court · 2023-10-05
  cancellation of bailplea of alibimurdervicarious liabilityfurther inquirycriminal procedurebail stage
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal application seeks the cancellation of bail granted to two respondents by the Trial Court in a murder case registered under sections 302, 147, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860. The core legal question was whether the Trial Court erred in granting bail based on a plea of alibi supported by Frontier Corps check-post entries and Call Detail Records, and whether the respondents' specific roles warranted bail cancellation. The High Court partially allowed the application, cancelling the bail of the first respondent, who was specifically nominated for the fatal firing, while maintaining the bail of the second respondent, whose role was distinguishable and lacked a specific overt act. The court held that a plea of alibi cannot be conclusively determined at the bail stage and requires trial evidence. Furthermore, bail cancellation requires strong, exceptional grounds, such as a patently illegal order or miscarriage of justice. The court emphasized that police reports are not binding, and the absence of crime weapon recovery does not automatically entitle an accused to bail.

  Questions settled

  • Can a plea of alibi be conclusively determined at the bail stage?
  • Is a police report under Section 169 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 binding on the Trial Court?
  • Does the non-recovery of a crime weapon automatically entitle an accused to the concession of bail?
  • What are the specific grounds required for the cancellation of bail once granted by a competent court?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ishaque Notezai vs Government of Pakistan, Establishment2024 PLC (C.S.) 1079 · Balochistan High Court · 2022-03-18
  constitutional petitionequality before lawservice matterdiscrimination in payNational Industrial Relations Commissionfundamental rights
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed by a Member of the National Industrial Relations Commission (NIRC), Quetta Bench, seeking pay and allowances equivalent to a Judge of the High Court, or alternatively equal to members of NIRC serving in other provinces. The core legal question was whether the disparate fixation of pay and allowances for similarly placed members of the same tribunal violates the fundamental right to equality under Article 25 of the Constitution of Pakistan. The Balochistan High Court held that while the petitioner was not entitled to the pay of a High Court Judge due to the terms of his contract, he was indeed subjected to unlawful discrimination compared to members of the NIRC in other benches performing identical functions. The court partly allowed the petition, ruling that public functionaries must treat similarly circumstanced persons alike, and directed the respondents to pay the petitioner the same basic pay, special judicial allowance, medical allowance, and ad hoc relief as received by the Member of the NIRC Multan Bench.

  Questions settled

  • Whether differential pay and allowances given to members of the same tribunal performing identical functions violates Article 25 of the Constitution of Pakistan?
  • Can the High Court exercise constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 to rectify discriminatory treatment in service terms and conditions?
  • Is a tribunal member appointed on contract entitled to claim pay equivalent to a Judge of the High Court contrary to their agreed contract terms?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ilyas vs The State2024 MLD 2001 · Balochistan High Court · 2024-08-28
  circumstantial evidencelast seen togetherjudicial confessionretracted confessionmurder convictionballistic evidencecriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellant for the murder of the deceased under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The prosecution's case rested entirely on circumstantial evidence, including 'last seen' testimony, the recovery of the body and weapon, and a judicial confession recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The appellant contended that the evidence was insufficient, the confession was delayed and involuntary, and no direct witnesses existed. The Balochistan High Court upheld the conviction, ruling that while 'last seen' evidence is weak in isolation, it becomes sufficient when corroborated by other unimpeachable sources. The Court affirmed that a retracted judicial confession, when voluntary and corroborated by independent evidence—such as ballistic reports and medical findings—is sufficient for conviction. Furthermore, the Court held that a delay in recording a confession does not inherently invalidate it if the confession is otherwise proven voluntary. Concluding that the circumstantial evidence formed an unbroken chain connecting the appellant to the crime, the Court dismissed the appeal and maintained the trial court's judgment.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a conviction can be sustained solely on the basis of circumstantial evidence including a retracted judicial confession?
  • Does a delay in recording a judicial confession under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 automatically render it inadmissible or unreliable?
  • What are the essential criteria for the 'last seen together' theory to be used as a basis for criminal conviction?
  • Is information leading to the discovery of a crime weapon admissible under the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, even if the initial confession was made in police custody?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Dawood and others vs Khudaidad and others2024 CLC 725 · Balochistan High Court · 2022-05-31Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Asgher Khan vs Abdul Latif and others2024 PLJ Quetta 36 · Balochistan High Court · 2022-10-13Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Arif Shah vs Muhammad Ishaq Darzi2024 PLJ Quetta 87 · Balochistan High Court · 2023-10-13Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Arif and 4 others vs Government of Balochistan through Chief2024 PLC (C.S.) 1125 · Balochistan High Court · 2023-07-26
  civil servantwrit jurisdictionterms and conditions of servicesalary arrearsservice tribunalconstitutional petitionouster of jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners, civil servants in the Health Department of the Government of Balochistan, filed a constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, seeking a writ of mandamus for the release of their unpaid salaries. The core legal question was whether the High Court possesses jurisdiction to adjudicate a grievance regarding the non-payment of salaries, or if such a matter is barred by the constitutional framework governing civil service disputes. The Court held that the petition was not maintainable, ruling that the payment of salary constitutes a term and condition of service under the Balochistan Civil Servants Act, 1974. Consequently, pursuant to Article 212 of the Constitution, the jurisdiction of the High Court is ousted in matters relating to the terms and conditions of service of civil servants, which fall exclusively within the domain of the Service Tribunal. The Court dismissed the petition in limine, affirming that civil servants must exhaust departmental remedies and approach the appropriate Service Tribunal for such grievances.

  Questions settled

  • Does the High Court have jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution to adjudicate a claim for unpaid salaries by a civil servant?
  • Is the payment of salary considered a term and condition of service for a civil servant under the Balochistan Civil Servants Act, 1974?
  • Does Article 212 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, bar the High Court from entertaining petitions regarding service matters of civil servants?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Anees and another vs The State2024 PCRLJ 1660 · Balochistan High Court · 2023-08-28
  narcotics possessionconscious possessionsearch warrantcriminal appealbenefit of doubtsanctity of homepolice testimonyControl of Narcotic Substances Act
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellants under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, for the alleged possession of narcotics recovered from a residential house. The core legal questions concerned whether the prosecution proved conscious possession beyond a reasonable doubt and whether the failure to obtain a search warrant for a residential premises vitiated the conviction. The High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the appellants' ownership or exclusive possession of the house, nor did it prove conscious possession of the contraband. Furthermore, the court emphasized that while Section 21 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 allows for searches without warrants in emergencies, the failure to record reasons for bypassing this requirement in a residential setting violated the sanctity of the home and Article 14 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973. Consequently, the court set aside the conviction, ruling that material contradictions in police testimony and the lack of independent witnesses rendered the prosecution's case unreliable. The appellants were acquitted, affirming that a single reasonable doubt entitles an accused to acquittal.

  Questions settled

  • Does the recovery of narcotics from a residential house without a search warrant, absent recorded reasons for urgency, violate the sanctity of the home?
  • Is the mere presence of an accused in a house sufficient to establish conscious possession of narcotics found therein?
  • Can a conviction be sustained when there are material contradictions in the testimonies of police witnesses regarding the recovery proceedings?
  • Is the failure to join independent witnesses in a recovery from a residential house fatal to the prosecution's case?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Amin and others vs Haji Abdul Wahid and others2024 CLC 340 · Balochistan High Court · 2022-04-28Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ameen and others vs Munawar Ali and others2024 CLC 2094 · Balochistan High Court · 2024-04-30Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Alim vs The State2024 PCRLJ 1531 · Balochistan High Court · 2022-10-05
  narcotic substanceschain of custodybenefit of doubtchemical examiner reportcriminal appealacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellant under section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, for the possession of charas. The core legal question concerns whether the prosecution established the chain of custody for the recovered contraband and proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The Court found that the prosecution failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the delay in transmitting the sealed parcels to the laboratory, creating a break in the chain of custody. Furthermore, the Court noted an unexplained delay in recording the statement of a key prosecution witness. Holding that the prosecution must establish an unbroken and secure chain of custody to rely on a chemical examiner's report, the Court concluded that the integrity of the evidence was compromised. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction, acquitted the appellant, and ordered his immediate release, reaffirming the principle that a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt entitles an accused to acquittal as a matter of right.

  Questions settled

  • Does a break in the chain of custody of recovered contraband vitiate the reliability of a chemical examiner's report?
  • Is the prosecution required to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt even when the burden of proof regarding innocence shifts to the accused?
  • Does a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt entitle an accused to acquittal?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ali and another vs The State and another2024 YLR 2445 · Balochistan High Court · 2023-06-19
  criminal appealmurderbenefit of doubtcontradictory evidenceocular accountmedical evidenceacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellants under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and sentencing them to life imprisonment. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had established the guilt of the appellants beyond a reasonable doubt through consistent ocular and corroboratory evidence. The Balochistan High Court held that the prosecution witnesses contradicted each other on material aspects, including their presence at the scene and the timing of recording statements, and that the ocular account was unreliable. The Court reiterated that once the ocular account is ruled out, supporting circumstances like recovery and medical evidence collapse, and any reasonable doubt must be resolved in favor of the accused. Consequently, the High Court accepted the appeals, set aside the convictions, and acquitted the appellants.

  Questions settled

  • Whether medical evidence can serve as a substitute for direct ocular testimony in a murder trial?
  • What is the legal effect on the prosecution's case when the primary eye-witnesses make material contradictions and dishonest improvements?
  • Does the collapse of the ocular account automatically weaken the corroboratory evidence such as recoveries?
  • To what extent is an accused entitled to the benefit of doubt when reasonable doubts are created in the prosecution story?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Zarmina Bibi vs Government of Balochistan through Secretary, Local2024 MLD 71, 2024 PLJ Quetta 64 · Balochistan High Court · 2023-06-01Read full judgment →
• Mst. Sakina vs Noor Muhammad and 2 others2024 CLC 1353, 2025 PLJ Quetta 28 · Balochistan High Court · 2023-04-12Read full judgment →
• Mst. Nazeerah vs The State2024 PCRLJ 937 · Balochistan High Court · 2023-06-27
  post-arrest bailnarcotic substancesprohibitory clauseorganized crimefemale accusedabsconding risk
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a post-arrest bail application filed by a female accused, Mst. Nazeerah, charged under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, following the recovery of 1590 grams of Ice and 560 grams of heroin from her personal possession. The core legal question was whether the applicant, being a woman, was entitled to the concession of bail under the first proviso to Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, despite the offence falling within the prohibitory clause of the same section. The court dismissed the bail application, holding that while the law provides a concession for women, it is not absolute. The court reasoned that the alleged offence, involving the transportation of narcotics, constitutes an organized crime, and there was a reasonable apprehension of the applicant absconding given her residence outside the jurisdiction. The court affirmed the principle that exceptions to granting bail, such as the likelihood of absconding, tampering with evidence, or repeating the offence, apply even to female accused persons seeking relief under the first proviso to Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898.

  Questions settled

  • Is the concession of bail for a woman under the first proviso to Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 absolute?
  • Do the exceptions for refusing bail in non-prohibitory offences apply to female accused seeking bail under the first proviso to Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can a court consider the risk of absconding when deciding a bail application for a female accused charged with drug trafficking?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Malala Bibi vs Inspector General of Police, Balochistan, Quetta and another2024 PLC (C.S) 107 · Balochistan High Court · 2023-03-27
  death compensationprospective operationwrit jurisdictionaggrieved personcivil servantretrospective effectconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition was filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, by the widow of a deceased civil servant seeking death compensation under the Death Compensation Policy, 2020, following her husband’s death due to Covid-19. The core legal question was whether the Policy, promulgated on 11 August 2020, applied retrospectively to a death that occurred on 2 June 2020. The Court held that the petition was meritless and dismissed it. The ratio decidendi is that executive policies, notifications, and statutes operate prospectively unless they contain an express provision for retrospective application. As the deceased died prior to the promulgation of the Policy, no legal right to compensation had accrued to the petitioner at the relevant time, meaning she did not qualify as an aggrieved person under Article 199. Furthermore, the Court rejected the petitioner's plea of discrimination, noting that the petitioner failed to establish a valid entitlement to the compensation package, rendering the comparison with other cases irrelevant.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Death Compensation Policy, 2020, apply retrospectively to deaths occurring before its promulgation?
  • Is a petitioner an aggrieved person under Article 199 of the Constitution if the legal right claimed did not exist at the time the cause of action arose?
  • Do executive policies and notifications operate prospectively in the absence of express language to the contrary?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Khan Bibi and 4 others vs Bibi Rahima and 5 others2024 PLJ Quetta 1 · Balochistan High Court · 2022-12-13Read full judgment →
• Mst. Aziza Khanum alias Shah Pari and another vs Member-II, Board of Revenue, Government of Balochistan, Civil Secretariat, Zargoon Road, Quetta and 5 others2024 YLR 2314 · Balochistan High Court · 2023-05-16Read full judgment →
• Mir Wais vs Naseebullah and 3 others2024 MLD 462 · Balochistan High Court · 2022-10-31Read full judgment →
• Mir Agha and another vs The State2024 YLR 2204 · Balochistan High Court · 2023-07-20
  criminal appealcircumstantial evidencebenefit of doubtextra-judicial confessionmedical evidenceocular testimonyrecovery of weapon
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal was filed against the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge-I Quetta, which convicted the appellants under Sections 302(b), 387, and 404 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for murder, extortion, and misappropriation of property. The prosecution's case rested on circumstantial evidence, extra-judicial confessions, and recoveries of cash and a pistol. The High Court, on reappraisal of the evidence, found significant contradictions between the medical evidence and the ocular testimony regarding the time of death. The Court also noted that the investigation was highly deficient, failing to examine the relief security guard. Furthermore, the recoveries were deemed doubtful, and the CCTV footage was unreliable as the culprits' faces were muffled. Applying the established principle of criminal jurisprudence, the Court held that the prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, and even a single reasonable doubt entitles the accused to acquittal as a matter of right. Consequently, the appeal was accepted, and the convictions were set aside.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a conviction can be sustained on circumstantial evidence when there are material contradictions between the medical evidence and the ocular testimony?
  • Can an extra-judicial confession and subsequent recovery of items support a conviction if the recovery is doubtful and the confession is not recorded before a Magistrate under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • What is the evidentiary value of CCTV footage where the suspects' faces are muffled and no identification parade or verification of the source was conducted?
  • Is an accused entitled to the benefit of doubt as a matter of right if there is a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt in a prudent mind?
  Read full judgment →
• Mihral and another vs Mst. Zargul and another2024 PLD Balochistan 158 · Balochistan High Court · 2022-11-29Read full judgment →
• Messrs Usman Ship Breakers through Proprietor vs Government of Balochistan through Secretary Ministry of Planning and Development, Balochistan and 4 others2024 PLD Balochistan 50 · Balochistan High Court · 2023-01-10Read full judgment →
• Messrs Sara Enterprises Government Contractors through Proprietor vs Secretary Finance, Government of Balochistan, Quetta and 2 others2024 PLD Balochistan 13, 2024 PTD 196 · Balochistan High Court · 2023-05-31Read full judgment →
• Messrs Noor Ul Haq through Abdul Samad vs The Government of Balochistan through Chief Secretary Balochistan and 2 others2024 PTD 342 · Balochistan High Court · 2022-08-11Read full judgment →
• Messrs Kurdish Mining Enterprises through Adnan Aziz Kurd and others vs Secretary Mines and Mineral, Government of Balochistan, Quetta and 12 others2024 CLC 1495 · Balochistan High Court · 2024-03-04Read full judgment →
• Messrs Friends Coal Company through Director vs The Government of Balochistan, Civil Secretariat through Secretary Mines and another2024 CLC 167 · Balochistan High Court · 2023-06-15Read full judgment →
• Messrs Contractors Association of Balochistan through Authorized2024 PLD Balochistan 56 · Balochistan High Court · 2023-05-29Read full judgment →
• Messrs Construction Association of Pakistan through Authorized2024 PTD 331 · Balochistan High Court · 2023-11-27Read full judgment →
• Masooma and another vs Federal Government through Ministry of Interior2024 PLD Balochistan 33 · Balochistan High Court · 2022-11-03Read full judgment →
• Malik Shah Muhammad and others vs Amanullah and others2024 PLJ Quetta 136 · Balochistan High Court · 2023-08-19Read full judgment →
• Malik & Company through Proprietor vs Chairman Pakistan Tobacco2024 CLD 491 · Balochistan High Court · 2021-05-26Read full judgment →
• M. N. Construction Company through Authorized Officer_Attorney vs Government of Balochistan through Chief Secretary, Quetta and 10 others2024 PLD Balochistan 38 · Balochistan High Court · 2023-05-29Read full judgment →
• Latif and others vs Abdul Nabi and others2024 MLD 1937 · Balochistan High Court · 2024-08-30Read full judgment →
• Khuda Bakhsh alias Baboo vs The State2024 YLR 2839 · Balochistan High Court · 2024-08-30
  arms ordinanceunlicensed weaponrecovery witnesscriminal appealacquittalnon-production of weapon
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Mastung, whereby the appellant was convicted under section 13(e) of the Arms Ordinance 1965 and sentenced to three years rigorous imprisonment with a fine. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully established the recovery of the unlicensed weapon and proved the charge beyond a reasonable doubt without producing the recovery witnesses or exhibiting the weapon during trial. The Balochistan High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case as the recovery witnesses were not produced and the weapon itself was not exhibited, relying merely on a recovery memo from a connected case. The court laid down the principle that mere presentation of a recovery memo without producing the recovery witnesses and exhibiting the weapon in court is insufficient to sustain a conviction for possession of an unlicensed weapon under the Arms Ordinance.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a conviction under the Arms Ordinance can be sustained when the prosecution fails to exhibit the recovered weapon during the trial?
  • Is the presentation of a recovery memo from a connected case sufficient to prove the charge of possessing an unlicensed weapon without examining the recovery witnesses?
  • What is the effect of the non-production of marginal or recovery witnesses in an arms recovery case?
  Read full judgment →
• Khrum Shezad Zafar and 2 others vs Razia Begum and 2 others2024 PLD Balochistan 101 · Balochistan High Court · 2022-11-29Read full judgment →
• Khan Muhammad vs The State2024 YLR 1113 · Balochistan High Court · 2023-12-07
  murder appealchance witnesseshostile witnessbenefit of the doubtmotiveweapon recoveryrelated witnessescriminal jurisprudence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant for murder under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal questions involved the reliability of related eye-witnesses, the status of an injured eye-witness turning hostile, the evidentiary value of a belated weapon recovery from an open access place without forensic matching, and the failure of proof regarding the alleged motive. The Balochistan High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt as the conduct of the alleged eye-witnesses rendered them chance witnesses whose presence at the crime scene was doubtful, the independent injured eye-witness did not implicate the appellant, the weapon recovery was tainted and unverified by a firearms expert, and the set-up motive remained unproven. The court laid down that where related witnesses act contrary to natural human conduct during an attack and independent evidence contradicts their presence, their testimony cannot form the basis of a conviction, and the failure to prove a set-up motive dents the prosecution case.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the testimony of related eye-witnesses can be relied upon when their conduct at the time of the occurrence runs counter to natural human behavior?
  • What is the effect on the prosecution case when a set-up motive is asserted but completely fails of proof?
  • Can a delayed weapon recovery from an open access place without forensic ballistic matching sustain a conviction?
  • How should the testimony of an independent injured eye-witness who does not support the prosecution version be treated?
  Read full judgment →
• Khaliq Dad and another vs The State2024 PCRLJ 678 · Balochistan High Court · 2022-09-16
  narcotic possessionchain of custodyconscious possessionbenefit of doubtcriminal appealsafe transmissionchemical examiner report
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of two appellants under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, for possessing narcotics concealed in a vehicle. The core legal questions concerned whether the prosecution proved the charge beyond reasonable doubt, specifically regarding the integrity of the chain of custody and the conscious possession of the passenger. The High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish an unbroken chain of custody from the point of recovery to the chemical examiner, rendering the forensic report unreliable. Additionally, the court found that the prosecution failed to prove that the passenger had knowledge of the narcotics concealed in the vehicle's dashboard. Consequently, the court set aside the conviction and acquitted both appellants, extending them the benefit of the doubt. The judgment reaffirms the principle that any gap in the safe custody or transmission of narcotic samples invalidates the chemical examiner's report, and that mere presence in a vehicle is insufficient to establish conscious possession without evidence of knowledge.

  Questions settled

  • Does a break in the chain of custody of narcotic samples render the chemical examiner's report unreliable?
  • Is a passenger in a vehicle containing concealed narcotics liable for conviction without proof of conscious possession?
  • Can a conviction under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 be sustained when prosecution witnesses provide contradictory testimony regarding the recovery process?
  Read full judgment →
• Kamal-Ud-Din vs The State2024 MLD 1289 · Balochistan High Court · 2022-11-18
  post-arrest bailstatutory delaystatutory right to baildelay in conclusion of trialprohibitory clausehardened criminalunder-trial prisoner
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a criminal miscellaneous application filed by the applicant Kamal-Ud-Din seeking post-arrest bail on the ground of statutory delay in the conclusion of his trial in a case registered under Sections 302, 324, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860. The core legal question before the Balochistan High Court was whether the accused had earned an indefeasible statutory right to be released on bail under the third proviso of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, due to the prolonged detention and non-conclusion of the trial within the statutory period, and whether such right could be defeated by delays occurring after the expiry of the statutory period or by mere procedural adjournments. The Court held that the applicant had indeed completed the mandatory statutory period of detention without the trial concluding, that the delay was not attributable to him within the meaning of the law, and that he did not fall within the prohibitory exceptions of being a hardened, desperate, or dangerous criminal. The High Court consequently allowed the application, laying down the principle that the statutory right to bail accrues upon the expiry of the prescribed period and that subsequent delays or general adjournments cannot divest the accused of this right once accrued.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an accused person acquires a statutory right to be released on bail if the trial is not concluded within the period specified under the third proviso of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898?
  • Can delays occurring after the expiry of the mandatory statutory detention period be used to defeat an accused person's accrued right to statutory bail?
  • What constitutes an act or omission on the part of the accused sufficient to disentitle them from claiming the benefit of the third proviso to Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898?
  • Does a court retain discretion to refuse bail under the third proviso of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, once the statutory period has elapsed and the exceptions of the fourth proviso are absent?
  Read full judgment →
• Javed Iqbal vs Shaheen Iqbal and others2024 PLJ Quetta 47 · Balochistan High Court · 2023-05-05Read full judgment →
• Javed Iqbal vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Communication, Civil Secretariat, Islamabad and 2 others2024 PLC (C.S) 65 · Balochistan High Court · 2022-08-29
  transfer and postingadministrative lawtenure of postingNHA Administrative Regulationsjudicial reviewpublic interestservice matter
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged an office order transferring the petitioner, an employee of the National Highway Authority (NHA), from his post after only eight months. The core legal question was whether the transfer violated the NHA Administrative Regulations, 2002, specifically regarding tenure and the protection of employees nearing retirement, and whether the transfer order was legally sustainable without compelling reasons. The Court held that the transfer order was illegal and of no legal effect. It found that the respondents failed to provide compelling reasons for deviating from the established tenure regulations (Regulation 4.10) and ignored the specific protection for employees aged 57 or older (Regulation 4.12(3)). The Court emphasized that administrative powers must be exercised reasonably and that transfers should not be used as a punitive measure or without justification. The key principle laid down is that when statutory rules or regulations specify a tenure for a posting, such tenure must be respected and cannot be varied except for compelling, recorded reasons that are subject to judicial review, particularly for senior employees nearing retirement.

  Questions settled

  • Does the transfer of a public servant before the completion of the prescribed tenure, without compelling reasons, constitute an illegal act?
  • Is an administrative authority required to provide reasons for transferring an employee who is 57 years of age or older under the NHA Administrative Regulations, 2002?
  • Does Section 24-A of the General Clauses Act 1897 require administrative orders to be speaking orders?
  • Can an administrative transfer order be set aside if it violates established tenure regulations and lacks justification?
  Read full judgment →
• Jan Muhammad and another vs The State2024 YLR 1624 · Balochistan High Court · 2023-01-13
  post-arrest bailmedical grounds for bailunder-trial prisonerspecialized medical treatmentcriminal trial objectivesbail in non-bailable offences
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by two accused persons, Jan Muhammad and Raz Muhammad, facing charges under Sections 324, 353, 186, and 392 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, following their arrest during a police encounter after an alleged robbery. The applicants sought bail exclusively on medical grounds, contending that their injuries sustained during the encounter required specialized treatment unavailable within the jail premises. The core legal question was whether the applicants' medical condition necessitated release on bail under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court held that while the applicants' condition was stable, the nature of their injuries—requiring extensive, ongoing specialized care—could not be adequately managed in custody. Relying on the principle that the object of a criminal trial is to ensure the accused faces trial rather than to punish an under-trial prisoner, the Court granted bail, holding that detention is inappropriate when specialized treatment is unavailable and continued incarceration poses a hazard to the accused's health.

  Questions settled

  • What is the correct criteria for granting bail to an accused in a non-bailable case on medical grounds?
  • Can an under-trial prisoner be released on bail if the jail premises cannot provide the specialized medical treatment required for their condition?
  • Does the object of a criminal trial include the punishment of an under-trial prisoner?
  Read full judgment →
• Jamshair vs The State2024 PCRLJ 343 · Balochistan High Court · 2023-04-04
  vicarious liabilitycommon intentionmurdercriminal appealocular evidenceovert actappreciation of evidenceabsconsion
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellant under section 302(b) read with section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, for the murder of the deceased. The core legal question was whether the appellant, who was present at the scene armed with a Kalashnikov but did not fire the fatal shot, could be held vicariously liable for the murder committed by his co-accused. The Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the appellant was rightly convicted. It established that while mere presence at a crime scene is insufficient for liability, the appellant’s overt act of brandishing a weapon and threatening witnesses to prevent their intervention demonstrated a shared common intention with the principal accused. The Court affirmed that common intention is a psychological fact inferred from the totality of circumstances rather than direct evidence. By facilitating the crime through intimidation, the appellant incurred joint liability under the doctrine of vicarious liability. Consequently, the conviction was upheld as the prosecution had successfully discharged its burden of proof, which the appellant failed to rebut.

  Questions settled

  • Can an accused be held vicariously liable for murder under section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, if they were present at the scene but did not perform the fatal act?
  • Is common intention a physical fact that must be proven by direct evidence, or can it be inferred from the circumstances of the case?
  • Does the mere presence of an accused at the scene of a crime, when coupled with overt acts of intimidation, constitute sufficient grounds for establishing common intention?
  • Does the relationship between co-accused persons serve as a relevant factor in determining the existence of a common intention to commit an offense?
  Read full judgment →
• Jamal Ahmed vs The State2024 PCRLJ 1207 · Balochistan High Court · 2022-10-10
  narcotic substanceschain of custodyquantum of sentencemitigating circumstancesdeath sentence conversionpolice witnessessafe transmission
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a criminal appeal against a conviction and sentence of death under section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, for the possession of 1000 kilograms of charas. The appellant challenged the conviction, arguing that the prosecution failed to prove the safe custody and transmission of the contraband, that the chemical examiner's report was unreliable, and that the recovery was not witnessed by independent persons. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully established the chain of custody and whether the death sentence was appropriate given the circumstances. The Court held that the prosecution successfully proved the safe custody and transmission of the contraband, noting that minor typographical errors in the forensic report did not invalidate the findings. While maintaining the conviction, the Court converted the death sentence to imprisonment for life, citing the appellant's status as a first-time offender as a mitigating circumstance. The principle laid down is that while police officials are competent witnesses, the court must exercise caution regarding the quantum of sentence, granting the accused the benefit of mitigating circumstances.

  Questions settled

  • Can the testimony of police officials be discarded solely because they are not independent witnesses?
  • Does a minor typographical error in a forensic report regarding the quantity of contraband invalidate the entire report?
  • Is a first-time offender status a valid mitigating circumstance for reducing a death sentence in narcotics cases?
  • What constitutes a break in the chain of custody for narcotic evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Jalat Khan and others vs The State and others2024 PCRLJ 435 · Balochistan High Court · 2023-06-05
  murdercriminal appealbenefit of doubtdelayed FIRcontradictory evidencemedical evidenceacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This common judgment disposes of a criminal appeal against conviction, a criminal revision petition for enhancement of sentence, and a criminal acquittal appeal arising from a murder case. The core legal questions involve the appreciation of ocular and medical evidence, the effect of an unexplained delay in lodging the FIR, and the application of the principle of benefit of doubt where prosecution witnesses give contradictory statements and fail to establish their presence. The Balochistan High Court held that material contradictions among eyewitnesses, delayed registration of the FIR, defective investigation, and an uncorroborated recovery rendered the prosecution case doubtful, and the trial court erred in convicting the appellants on the same set of evidence it used to acquit the co-accused. The court laid down the principle that medical evidence cannot establish the identity of an accused in the absence of reliable direct evidence, and that a conviction cannot be sustained when the foundational pillars of the prosecution case are ridden with serious doubts and contradictions.

  Questions settled

  • What is the legal effect of an unexplained delay of twenty-seven hours in lodging the first information report in a criminal case?
  • Can medical evidence alone establish the identity of an accused or connect them to the commission of an offense when direct ocular testimony is found unreliable?
  • Whether a conviction can be sustained on the same set of evidence that led to the acquittal of co-accused persons.
  • What is the evidentiary value of a disclosure statement and subsequent recovery of weapons of offense that are common household items and unstained with blood?
  Read full judgment →
• Inayatullah vs The State2024 YLR 2107 · Balochistan High Court · 2022-10-10
  narcotics recoverycharascredibility of police witnessessafe custody of samplescriminal appealdrug menacedefence evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, and sentencing him to four years rigorous imprisonment with a fine following the recovery of 4000 grams of charas. The core legal question involved the appreciation of prosecution evidence, specifically regarding the reliability of police witnesses, safe custody and transmission of narcotic samples, and the evaluation of defence pleas in narcotics cases. The Balochistan High Court held that the prosecution successfully proved its case beyond reasonable doubt through consistent and confidence-inspiring testimonies of police officials, whose evidence is as credible as that of private persons, and that the chain of custody of the samples was intact. The court dismissed the appeal, affirming the conviction and reiterating the established principle that police officials are competent witnesses and that the menace of narcotics must be strictly dealt with.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the testimony of police officials can be discarded solely on the ground that no private witnesses from the locality were associated with the recovery?
  • Are police officials as competent witnesses as private persons in criminal cases?
  • Does the mere delay in sending narcotic samples to the laboratory vitiate the prosecution's case when safe custody and transmission are established?
  • How should conflicting versions between ocular testimony and defence evidence be evaluated in narcotics cases?
  Read full judgment →
• Imran vs The State2024 YLR 1487 · Balochistan High Court · 2024-03-29
  post-arrest bailnarcoticsprohibitory clausefurther inquiryweight of contrabandbail in non-prohibitory offences
  Summary & questions settled

  This bail application arose from the arrest of the applicant for the alleged possession of 1090 grams of 'Charas' under the Control of Narcotic Substances (Amendment) Act, 2022. The core legal question was whether the recovered quantity, which was weighed inclusive of the polythene bag, definitively placed the offense within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, thereby disentitling the applicant to bail. The Court observed that the prosecution failed to establish the net weight of the narcotics, as the weight recorded included the container. Consequently, the Court held that the case presented a 'borderline' scenario between the non-prohibitory and prohibitory clauses of the relevant narcotics legislation. Applying the principle that bail is the rule and refusal the exception in non-prohibitory offenses, the Court granted post-arrest bail to the applicant. The key principle laid down is that where the weight of narcotics is marginally above the threshold of a non-prohibitory offense and includes the weight of the packaging, the matter constitutes a case of further inquiry, favoring the grant of bail.

  Questions settled

  • Does the inclusion of packaging weight in the total weight of recovered narcotics create a case for further inquiry regarding the applicability of the prohibitory clause?
  • Is an offense under the Control of Narcotic Substances (Amendment) Act, 2022, bailable if the net weight of the narcotics is uncertain and potentially falls below the threshold of the prohibitory clause?
  • When does a narcotics case qualify as a 'borderline' case for the purpose of granting bail under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Imran vs The State through Prosecutor General2024 PCRLJ 1048 · Balochistan High Court · 2023-11-13
  rapeunnatural offensebenefit of the doubtDNA reportdelayed FIRcriminal appealacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellant challenged his conviction under Section 376 and Section 377-B of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, resulting in a sentence of life imprisonment and five years rigorous imprisonment respectively, handed down by the trial court for the alleged rape and unnatural offense against a minor girl. The core legal question was whether the prosecution proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt, considering material contradictions in witnesses' statements, an inordinate delay in lodging the FIR, missing links in the safe custody of forensic samples, and an inconclusive DNA report. The Balochistan High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned judgment, and acquitted the appellant. The court held that an uncorroborated, delayed FIR combined with an unexplained 17-day delay in sending forensic samples to the agency, failure to establish safe custody of samples, and a DNA report failing to match the appellant's blood sample render the prosecution's case highly doubtful, entitling the accused to the benefit of the doubt.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an inordinate delay in lodging an FIR without plausible explanation creates doubt in the prosecution case?
  • Does an unexplained delay in transmitting forensic samples to the forensic science agency and failure to prove safe custody vitiate the reliance on a DNA report?
  • Can a conviction for rape and an unnatural offense be sustained when the medical evidence and DNA analysis fail to conclusively link the accused to the crime?
  Read full judgment →
• Imran Munir vs The State2024 MLD 1478 · Balochistan High Court · 2023-07-21
  narcoticschemical analysis reportchain of custodysample collection protocolcriminal appealacquittalevidentiary doubt
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellant under Section 9(1) 3-E of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, for the alleged possession of 40 kilograms of charas. The core legal questions concerned whether the prosecution established the recovery beyond reasonable doubt, particularly regarding the integrity of sample collection, the chain of custody, and the evidentiary value of the chemical analysis report. The Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction, and acquitted the appellant. The ratio of the decision emphasizes that when multiple packets of narcotics are recovered, separate samples must be drawn from each; failure to do so means the consolidated sample represents only one packet. Furthermore, the Court held that the prosecution's failure to produce the vehicle used for smuggling creates a significant evidentiary gap. Finally, the judgment reaffirmed that for a chemical analysis report to be conclusive, it must explicitly detail the internationally recognized protocols applied during testing. The absence of such protocols, combined with a failure to prove the safe custody of the narcotics, renders the prosecution's case doubtful, necessitating acquittal.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure to draw separate samples from each packet of recovered narcotics render the chemical analysis report representative of only one packet?
  • Is the failure to produce the vehicle used for the transportation of narcotics a ground to create reasonable doubt in the prosecution's case?
  • Must a chemical analysis report explicitly detail the specific protocols applied to be considered conclusive evidence?
  • Does the failure to prove the safe custody of narcotics from the place of recovery to the laboratory vitiate the prosecution's case?
  Read full judgment →
• Imam Bakhsh and 6 others vs Muhammad Siddique2024 PLD Balochistan 165 · Balochistan High Court · 2022-08-15Read full judgment →
• Ibrahim Alias Taig and others vs The State2024 PCRLJ 190 · Balochistan High Court · 2023-05-03
  explosive substancesanti-terrorismforced disappearancebenefit of the doubtillegal detentionviolation of section 103 Cr.P.C.right to libertydignity of manacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Anti-Terrorism Court, Loralai, whereby the appellants were convicted under section 7(ff) of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 and sentenced to fourteen years of rigorous imprisonment each. The core legal question was whether the prosecution proved the charge of possessing explosive substances and having links with a banned organization beyond a reasonable doubt, given the defense's plea of forced disappearance and non-compliance with mandatory procedural laws. The Balochistan High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish its case beyond a reasonable doubt due to non-compliance with section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, lack of proof regarding terrorist nexus, and credible defense evidence supporting prior illegal detention. The court laid down the principle that the right to liberty and human dignity under Articles 4 and 14 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 must be strictly guarded against forced disappearances and fabricated cases, and that any reasonable doubt in the prosecution's evidence must be resolved in favor of the accused as a matter of right.

  Questions settled

  • Does the non-compliance with mandatory provisions of section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 during a police raid vitiate the conviction?
  • Is an accused entitled to an acquittal as of right when the defense raises a plausible plea of forced disappearance prior to the registration of the FIR?
  • Can a conviction for terrorism be sustained on mere assumptions and presumptions without unimpeachable and reliable prosecution evidence?
  • What is the constitutional mandate regarding the protection of personal liberty and human dignity under Articles 4 and 14 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 in cases involving alleged illegal detentions?
  Read full judgment →
• Hunain alias Moon vs Murad Bakhsh2024 MLD 1785 · Balochistan High Court · 2022-08-19Read full judgment →
• Hazrat Ali Kakar son of Abdul Haq resident of Manha, District Ziarat.,RasoolPTCL 2024 CL. 106 · Balochistan High CourtRead full judgment →
• Hazoor Bakhsh vs The State2024 MLD 1756 · Balochistan High Court · 2023-09-26
  criminal appealqatl-bis-sababbenefit of doubtcontradictory evidencewithholding of witnessconviction set asidemedical evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Sessions Judge, Kalat, whereby the appellant was convicted under sections 322, 337-A(i), and 337-F(i) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question revolved around whether the prosecution successfully established the guilt of the appellant through consistent medical and ocular evidence connecting him to the fatal incident. The Balochistan High Court held that material contradictions between the prompt FIR, ocular testimony, and medical evidence, alongside the withholding of a material witness, rendered the prosecution's case highly doubtful and demonstrated that the trial court travelled beyond the charge. The court laid down the principle that an accused cannot be convicted under Qatal-bis-Sabab or related hurt provisions without concrete evidence establishing a direct causal link between an unlawful act of the accused and the resulting death or injury. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the conviction was set aside, and the appellant was acquitted.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an accused can be convicted for Qatal-bis-Sabab without concrete evidence of an unlawful act causing death?
  • Does a material contradiction between the prompt FIR and subsequent ocular testimony vitiate the prosecution case?
  • What is the legal effect of the prosecution withholding a material eyewitness under Article 129(g) of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984?
  • Can a trial court convict an accused for offenses not included in the formal charge?
  Read full judgment →
• Hassan Ali and others vs The State2024 MLD 907 · Balochistan High Court · 2023-06-15
  dacoityfirearm injuriesprompt FIRocular accountmedical evidencered-handed arrestcriminal appealrecovery
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from a judgment of the trial court convicting the appellants under Section 397/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for dacoity and causing firearm injuries during a robbery at a commodity shop. The core legal questions involve the credibility of ocular and medical evidence, prompt registration of the First Information Report, and the evidentiary value of red-handed apprehension with incriminating recoveries. The Balochistan High Court held that the prosecution successfully proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt, as the First Information Report was lodged with promptitude, injured eyewitnesses corroborated the occurrence, and prompt spot-arrests along with positive forensic reports established the guilt of the accused. The court laid down the principle that the prompt lodging of an FIR excludes fabrication, and the natural testimony of injured eyewitnesses corroborated by prompt spot recoveries and medical evidence forms a safe basis for a conviction.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the prompt registration of an FIR excludes the possibility of fabrication and deliberation in a criminal case?
  • Does the testimony of injured eyewitnesses carry special weight in corroborating the prosecution's case?
  • Can apprehension of the accused on the spot along with recoveries of the weapon and snatched property form a reliable basis for maintaining a conviction under Section 397/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code?
  • Whether minor inconsistencies in cross-examination are sufficient to discredit an otherwise consistent and confidence-inspiring ocular account?
  Read full judgment →
• Hameeda vs Khan Muhammad and 2 others2024 MLD 51 · Balochistan High Court · 2022-11-16Read full judgment →
• Hamayun Khan vs The State through Prosecutor General, Balochistan2024 PCRLJ 1597 · Balochistan High Court · 2023-08-01
  narcotics possessionchain of custodysafe transmissionforensic science laboratory reportstandard of proofcriminal appealacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence imposed by the Trial Court under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, for the possession of 4 kilograms of charas. The core legal question is whether the prosecution successfully established the chain of custody and the safe transmission of the recovered narcotics from the point of seizure to the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL). The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the safe custody and transmission of the samples, noting a material discrepancy between the date of receipt of samples recorded in the FSL reports and the date the investigating officer allegedly received them for transmission. Citing established precedents, the Court emphasized that any break in the chain of custody or lapse in the control of possession renders the Government Analyst's report unreliable and insufficient to sustain a conviction. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction, acquitted the appellant, and ordered his immediate release, reaffirming the principle that the harsher the sentence, the stricter the standard of proof required in criminal cases.

  Questions settled

  • Does a discrepancy in the dates of receipt of narcotic samples between the Forensic Science Laboratory report and the investigating officer's records vitiate the prosecution's case?
  • Is the prosecution required to prove the unbroken chain of custody of narcotics from the place of recovery to the laboratory to sustain a conviction under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997?
  • What is the impact of a break in the chain of custody on the reliability of a Government Analyst's report in narcotics cases?
  Read full judgment →
• Haider Khan vs Sher Khan and 3 others2024 PLD Balochistan 30 · Balochistan High Court · 2022-09-21Read full judgment →
• Gul Sher vs Ahmed Jan and others2024 MLD 599 · Balochistan High Court · 2022-11-15Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Rasool alias Mah Khan vs The State2024 YLR 1188 · Balochistan High Court · 2023-11-21
  murderdeath sentencelife imprisonmentocular evidencerelated witnessconfessional statementballistic reportmitigating circumstances
  Summary & questions settled

  The High Court of Balochistan considered a Criminal Jail Appeal and Murder Reference arising from the conviction and death sentence of the appellant under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of his uncle and cousin. The core issues pertained to the reliability of related ocular witnesses, the admissibility of a delayed and improperly recorded confessional statement, and the appropriate quantum of sentence. The Court held that the testimony of natural and confidence-inspiring eye-witnesses, even if related, combined with positive ballistic and medical evidence, was sufficient to establish guilt. However, the appellant's confessional statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 was excluded due to unexplained delay and failure to provide reflection time. Finding that the immediate motive or trigger for the incident remained unknown, the Court identified this as a mitigating factor, maintained the conviction, but modified the death penalty to life imprisonment, answering the murder reference in the negative.

  Questions settled

  • Does the mere close relationship of eye-witnesses to a victim render their testimony untrustworthy in a murder trial?
  • Does a Judicial Magistrate's failure to provide adequate reflection time render a confessional statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. involuntary and inadmissible?
  • Can an unproved motive or an undisclosed immediate cause of occurrence serve as a mitigating circumstance to commute a death sentence to life imprisonment?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Nabi vs The State2024 PCRLJ 1778 · Balochistan High Court · 2023-03-10
  post-arrest bailcross-version casefurther inquiryaggressor determinationcriminal procedurebail principles
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by the accused in a cross-version case registered under sections 324, 147, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the accused is entitled to bail when both parties have lodged cross-versions of the same incident, and the identity of the aggressor remains disputed. The court held that the case falls within the ambit of "further inquiry" under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The court reasoned that in cross-version cases, determining the aggressor requires a deeper appreciation of evidence, which is prohibited at the bail stage and must be reserved for the trial court after recording evidence. Furthermore, the court emphasized that bail is not to be withheld as a punishment, and since the investigation was complete and no specific role was attributed to the accused, the accused was entitled to release. The court granted the bail application, subject to the furnishing of bail bonds, while clarifying that these observations were tentative and should not influence the trial court's final decision.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a case involving cross-versions of the same incident constitutes a case of 'further inquiry' under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is the determination of the aggressor in a cross-version case permissible at the bail stage?
  • Can bail be withheld as a form of punishment in criminal cases?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Hussain vs The State2024 YLR 1973 · Balochistan High Court · 2023-03-30
  criminal appealmurderchance witnessesacquittal of co-accusedabscondencebenefit of doubtcontradictions in evidencereappraisal of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court whereby the appellant, Ghulam Hussain, was convicted and sentenced under Section 302(b), Section 324, Section 337-F(i), and Section 148 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for murder, attempted hurt, and rioting. The core legal question revolved around whether the prosecution had proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt, given that the eye-witnesses were chance witnesses, material contradictions existed in the testimony, no independent corroboration was available, and a co-accused on the same set of evidence had already been acquitted. The Balochistan High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction, and acquitted the appellant. The court laid down the principle that the testimony of untrustworthy chance witnesses cannot form the basis of a conviction, that evidence disbelieved against one co-accused cannot be relied upon against another without independent and unimpeachable corroboration, and that mere abscondence cannot take the place of proof or cure fundamental defects in the prosecution case.

  Questions settled

  • Can the testimony of chance witnesses be relied upon without plausible explanation of their presence at the scene?
  • Does the acquittal of a co-accused on the same set of evidence require independent corroboration to sustain the conviction of another co-accused?
  • Can mere abscondence of an accused take the place of positive proof to establish guilt?
  • What is the evidentiary value of material contradictions and dis-improvements in the statements of prosecution witnesses?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Hussain Gullo vs The State2024 MLD 1044 · Balochistan High Court · 2024-03-28
  narcotics possessioncriminal appealbenefit of doubtindependent witnessescontradictory evidenceacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from the conviction and sentencing of the appellant under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 for narcotics possession. The core legal question is whether the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt through confidence-inspiring evidence, given significant contradictions in the recovered weight of contraband, the absence of independent witnesses despite prior spy information, failure to employ modern recording techniques, and the lack of recovery of sale money or identification of any alleged purchaser. The Balochistan High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the conviction and acquitting the appellant. The court held that stringent punishments require strong and confidence-inspiring evidence, and that material contradictions coupled with the failure to associate independent witnesses create serious doubts, the benefit of which must be extended to the accused.

  Questions settled

  • Whether material contradictions in the weight of recovered narcotics between the FIR, murasila, and ocular testimony are fatal to the prosecution's case?
  • Does the failure to associate independent witnesses during a recovery made on prior spy information create reasonable doubt?
  • Whether the absence of sale money and non-identification of any purchaser vitiates a conviction for selling narcotics?
  • Can a criminal conviction be sustained when the prosecution evidence is not free from doubt?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Dastagir and another vs Allah Bakhsh2024 PLJ Quetta 115 · Balochistan High Court · 2023-02-16Read full judgment →
• Ghousia Rice Mills through Proprietor vs National Bank of Pakistan through Manager and 2 others2024 CLD 965 · Balochistan High Court · 2017-09-21Read full judgment →
• Faiz Muhammad vs Province of Balochistan through Chief Secretary, Civil2024 PLC (C.S.) 482 · Balochistan High Court · 2022-08-22
  up-gradation of postterms and conditions of servicetransfer and postingconstitutional jurisdictionservice tribunalbar of jurisdictionlaches
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a civil servant holding the post of Deputy Director (B-18), sought the up-gradation of his post to Director (B-19) based on recommendations of an Up-gradation Committee, and challenged the transfer and posting of respondent No. 5 to a non-cadre post. The core legal questions were whether an individual civil servant can claim up-gradation of a post as a matter of right without a general policy, and whether the High Court has jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution to entertain a challenge regarding the transfer and posting of a civil servant in view of the constitutional bar under Article 212. The Balochistan High Court held that up-gradation is personal to isolated posts to address stagnation under a general policy across the board and cannot be claimed to benefit a particular individual, and that matters relating to the transfer and posting of civil servants fall exclusively within the jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal under Article 212 of the Constitution. The petition was dismissed as not maintainable.

  Questions settled

  • Can a civil servant claim the up-gradation of a post as a matter of right for personal benefit?
  • Whether up-gradation of a post is restricted to restructuring and addressing stagnation across the board rather than benefiting a particular individual?
  • Does the High Court have jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution to entertain petitions relating to the transfer and posting of civil servants?
  • Whether matters regarding the transfer and posting of a civil servant fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal under Article 212 of the Constitution?
  Read full judgment →
• Ejaz vs The State2024 MLD 1955 · Balochistan High Court · 2024-09-04
  concurrent sentencesjail appealhardship casequantum of sentencesubsequent convictioncriminal miscellaneousreformative theory of punishment
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal miscellaneous jail appeal was filed by the appellant through the Superintendent Central Prison, Gaddani, seeking an order for his sentences in multiple cases—specifically FIR No. 14 of 2023, FIR No. 28 of 2013, FIR No. 32 of 2014, and FIR No. 35 of 2014—to run concurrently. The core legal question before the court was whether the High Court is competent under Section 561-A and Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to compute and direct multiple sentences awarded in different trials to run concurrently. The Balochistan High Court allowed the appeal, holding that the court possesses wide and unfettered discretion under Section 397 read with Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to direct sentences from separate trials to run concurrently in cases of hardship to prevent ruthless treatment and defeat of the reformative purpose of incarceration. The key principle laid down is that courts must exercise their inherent and statutory powers to order concurrent execution of sentences in appropriate cases of hardship.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court is competent under Section 561-A read with Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to order multiple sentences awarded in different trials to run concurrently?
  • Can the benefit of concurrent sentences be extended to a convict who has been sentenced in multiple separate trials arising out of different FIRs?
  • Does Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 confer discretion on the court to direct a subsequent sentence of imprisonment to run concurrently with a previous sentence?
  Read full judgment →
• Dr. Rashid Tarin vs The Government of Balochistan through Chief Secretary, Civil Secretariat, Quetta and 2 others2024 CLD 948 · Balochistan High Court · 2023-10-19Read full judgment →
• Dr. Musadiq Aziz and 6 others vs Government of Balochistan through Secretary Health Department Civil Secretariat, Quetta and another2024 PLC (C.S.) 1190 · Balochistan High Court · 2023-09-11
  eligibility criteriacutoff datehope certificatepublic service commissionrecruitmenteducational qualificationequal opportunity
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged the disqualification of the petitioners by the Balochistan Public Service Commission from the recruitment process for Health Management Cadre (B-17) posts. The petitioners had applied for the posts before the prescribed cutoff date, despite lacking the required Master's degree in Public Health at that time, relying on the expectation of obtaining the qualification shortly thereafter. The core legal question was whether a candidate who does not possess the requisite educational qualification by the cutoff date specified in an advertisement is eligible for selection. The Court dismissed the petition, holding that eligibility must be determined strictly with reference to the cutoff date mentioned in the advertisement. The Court reaffirmed that the practice of accepting 'hope certificates' is unlawful and that candidates must possess the prescribed qualifications at the time of application. It emphasized that any deviation from established eligibility criteria undermines the principles of equal opportunity and fair selection. Consequently, the Court upheld the Commission's decision to reject the petitioners' candidatures and directed the authorities to re-advertise the vacant posts to ensure compliance with legal requirements.

  Questions settled

  • Can a candidate who does not possess the requisite educational qualification by the cutoff date specified in a job advertisement be considered eligible for selection?
  • Is the practice of accepting 'hope certificates' for government or statutory appointments legally permissible?
  • Does the passing of a written test create a vested right for a candidate who lacked the initial eligibility criteria at the time of application?
  Read full judgment →
• Dr. Engr. Imran Hameed Durrani vs The Chief Secretary, Government of Balochistan, Quetta and 3 others2024 YLR 247 · Balochistan High Court · 2023-06-05Read full judgment →
• Dilawar Khan vs The State2024 PLD Balochistan 70 · Balochistan High Court · 2023-11-20
  Foreigners Act 1946plea of guiltcriminal proceduretrial court procedurerecording of evidencejuvenile justiceconviction and sentencing
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellant under the Foreigners Act 1946, following a plea of guilt entered after the appellant had initially denied the charge and claimed trial. The core legal question was whether a trial court is justified in accepting a belated plea of guilt and convicting an accused after the accused has already formally denied the charge and the case has proceeded to the evidence stage. The Balochistan High Court held that the conviction was unsustainable. The court ruled that once a formal charge is framed and denied under Section 242 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, the provisions of Section 243 regarding conviction on admission become inoperative, mandating the court to proceed under Section 244 by recording prosecution evidence. The key principle laid down is that a trial court cannot accept a mid-trial plea of guilt to bypass the mandatory requirement of recording evidence once the accused has claimed trial. Additionally, the court emphasized that independent evidence should always be gathered to support a conviction, even when a plea of guilt is entered.

  Questions settled

  • Can a trial court accept a plea of guilt after the accused has already formally denied the charge and claimed trial?
  • Does the denial of a charge under Section 242 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 render the provisions of Section 243 inoperative?
  • Is independent evidence required to support a conviction even when an accused pleads guilty during the course of a trial?
  Read full judgment →
• Deputy Commissioner/Collector, Quetta vs Sheikh Muhammad Islam and2024 PLJ Quetta 14 · Balochistan High CourtRead full judgment →
• Deputy commissioner/Collector, Quetta and others vs Habib-Ur-Rehman2024 PLD Balochistan 87 · Balochistan High Court · 2022-10-27Read full judgment →
• Dawood Shehzad and others vs The State and others2024 MLD 1612 · Balochistan High Court · 2024-03-29
  circumstantial evidenceabduction for ransomDNA profilingforensic evidencejoint disclosurecapital punishment conversionanti-terrorism
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment disposes of criminal appeals against the conviction and sentencing of the appellants by the Anti-Terrorism Court for the abduction for ransom and subsequent brutal murder of a minor child, whose dead body was burnt. The core legal questions involved the reliability and sufficiency of circumstantial evidence, call data records, DNA profiling, and disclosures leading to discoveries under the law of evidence in an unseen crime. The Balochistan High Court held that while the prosecution successfully established an unbroken chain of circumstantial evidence, including forensic DNA matches and recoveries, against two of the appellants, the evidence against the remaining co-accused was insufficient and based primarily on uncorroborated accomplice disclosures. The court laid down the principle that in cases resting entirely on circumstantial evidence, every link in the chain must be conclusively established without a missing link, and while modern scientific techniques like DNA profiling serve as robust corroborative evidence, capital punishment requires the highest standard of certainty, warranting the conversion of the death sentence to life imprisonment in the presence of mitigating circumstances.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a conviction for a capital charge can be sustained solely on circumstantial evidence when a link in the chain of events is missing?
  • Are statements recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 and Call Data Records admissible as modern device evidence under Article 164 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984?
  • Does a DNA profiling report constitute sufficient corroborative evidence to uphold a conviction in an unseen murder case?
  • Can a co-accused be convicted solely on the basis of a disclosure made by another co-accused without independent strong corroboration?
  • What is the standard of proof required for awarding the death penalty in cases resting entirely on circumstantial evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Dad Muhammad and 4 others vs National Database & Registration2024 PLJ Quetta 166, 2025 CLC 253 · Balochistan High CourtRead full judgment →
• Dr. Sadrak Jala vs Bishop Fredrick Johan and 4 others2024 MLD 1557 · Balochistan High Court · 2023-05-22Read full judgment →
• Constructors Association of Pakistan through Secretary General and 42024 PLD Balochistan 23 · Balochistan High Court · 2022-06-24Read full judgment →
• Collector of Customs (Enforcement), Custom House Airport Road, Quetta2024 PTD 1542, 2025 PLJ Quetta 42 · Balochistan High Court · 2023-03-12Read full judgment →
• Chief Engineer (West) Pakistan Public Works Department, Quetta vs M/s2024 MLD 1918 · Balochistan High CourtRead full judgment →
• Bismillah and 2 others vs Naik Muhammad through Legal Heirs2024 CLC 262 · Balochistan High Court · 2023-03-17Read full judgment →
• Bismillah and 2 others vs Naik Muhammad (Late) through Legal Heirs and others2024 PLJ Quetta 130 · Balochistan High CourtRead full judgment →
• Bilal vs The State2024 PCRLJ 1792 · Balochistan High Court · 2024-05-24
  criminal appealhostile witnessretracted confessionmurder convictionbenefit of doubtjudicial confessionappreciation of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellant, Bilal, for the murder of two individuals, Shabir Ahmed and Shahal, under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The trial court had sentenced the appellant to life imprisonment and imposed compensation. The core legal questions concerned the reliability of a hostile witness's testimony and the evidentiary value of a retracted judicial confession. The Balochistan High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the conviction. The Court held that the testimony of a hostile witness is not to be discarded in its entirety but must be evaluated based on the circumstances to ascertain the truth. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that a retracted confession can form the basis of a conviction if it is found to be voluntary, true, and corroborated by other evidence. The Court emphasized that the benefit of doubt must be reasonable, not fanciful, and that the prosecution successfully proved the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt through credible evidence, including the judicial confession recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.

  Questions settled

  • Can the testimony of a hostile witness be relied upon to support a conviction?
  • Under what circumstances can a retracted judicial confession form the basis of a conviction?
  • Is the benefit of doubt applicable to fanciful doubts in a criminal trial?
  Read full judgment →
• Bibi Zainab and others vs Haji Muhammad Hassan and others2024 YLR 157 · Balochistan High Court · 2023-01-09
  Criminal Quashment PetitionCompromise in criminal casesAcquittalInherent powers of High CourtAppeal against acquittalLegal heirsSection 561-A CrPC
  Summary & questions settled

  This Criminal Quashment Petition challenged a trial court order that refused to reopen a criminal case following a decade-old acquittal based on a compromise. The petitioners, who were minor legal heirs of the deceased at the time of the original compromise, sought to reopen the proceedings, claiming they were excluded from the settlement. The core legal question was whether a criminal case, finalized by a compromise and subsequent acquittal, could be reopened via a quashment petition after a significant lapse of time. The High Court dismissed the petition, holding that it could not reopen a case on its merits under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 after a final acquittal. The court established the principle that inherent powers under Section 561-A cannot be utilized as a substitute for the statutory remedy of an appeal against an acquittal. Consequently, the petitioners were directed to pursue their grievances through the appropriate legal channel of an appeal under Section 417 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.

  Questions settled

  • Can a criminal case be reopened under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 after a final acquittal based on a compromise?
  • Is a quashment petition the appropriate legal remedy for challenging an acquittal after the lapse of ten years?
  • Does the High Court have the authority to reopen a case on merits under its inherent powers after a compromise has been accepted by the trial court?
  Read full judgment →
• Bibi Hajira and others vs The Secretary Health, Government of Balochistan2024 PLC (C.S.) 1109 · Balochistan High Court · 2022-04-26
  constitutional petitionvested rightrecruitment processwrit of mandamusjudicial reviewpublic employmentrecruitment committee
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns two consolidated constitutional petitions challenging the recruitment process for various government posts in District Ziarat. In one petition, candidates alleged irregularities in the recruitment committee's composition and selection process, while in the other, candidates sought the issuance of appointment orders following their recommendation by the committee. The core legal questions were whether the recruitment committee was validly constituted and whether the petitioners acquired a vested right to appointment merely by appearing for tests and interviews. The Court held that the recruitment committee was lawfully constituted by the relevant government department, and the petitioners failed to substantiate allegations of bias or malice. Furthermore, the Court held that appearing for a test and interview does not create a vested right to employment, as such processes are not final. The Court affirmed the principle that executive policy matters regarding recruitment committees are generally beyond judicial interference absent proof of illegality or fundamental rights violations, and that mere selection or recommendation does not entitle a candidate to a writ of mandamus for appointment.

  Questions settled

  • Does appearing for a test and interview create a vested right to government employment?
  • Can a High Court interfere in the executive policy regarding the constitution of a recruitment committee?
  • Is a candidate entitled to a writ of mandamus for appointment merely based on a recommendation by a recruitment committee?
  Read full judgment →
• Bayazid Khan Kharoti vs Chief Secretary Government of Balochistan Civil2024 PLC (C.S.) 246 · Balochistan High Court · 2023-05-29
  post-retirement benefitspublic exchequerconstitutional petitionexecutive authoritycabinet approvalMustafa Impexcivil service
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged a notification issued by the Government of Balochistan granting various perks and privileges, including security, transportation, and fuel allowances, to retired Chief Secretaries and their widows for life. The petitioner contended that these benefits lacked statutory backing and imposed an unjustifiable burden on the public exchequer. The core legal question was whether the executive government could grant such extensive post-retirement benefits to a specific class of civil servants without legislative authority or cabinet approval. The Court held that the impugned notifications were illegal, discriminatory, and arbitrary, as they lacked a basis in law or regulation and were issued without the mandatory approval of the Provincial Cabinet. Emphasizing that public funds cannot be utilized for personal bounties without clear statutory authorization, the Court ruled that the notifications were invalid. The judgment reaffirms the principle that executive actions granting financial benefits must be rooted in law and, following the dictum in Mustafa Impex, must receive proper cabinet approval to be constitutionally valid.

  Questions settled

  • Can the provincial government grant post-retirement perks and privileges to civil servants without specific statutory backing?
  • Is a notification issued by a provincial department valid if it lacks the approval of the Provincial Cabinet?
  • Does the granting of exclusive perks to a specific class of civil servants violate the principles of non-discrimination and equality?
  Read full judgment →
• Basit Ali vs Higher Education Commission (HEC) and others2024 MLD 1892 · Balochistan High Court · 2023-11-30Read full judgment →
• Balochistan Bar Council through Vice-Chairman vs Government of Balochistan through Chief Secretary Balochistan, Civil Secretariat and 2 others2024 CLD 462 · Balochistan High Court · 2023-11-24Read full judgment →
• Babar Ali and another vs Muhammad Iqbal and 2 others2024 PCRLJ 105 · Balochistan High Court · 2023-03-27
  criminal acquittal appealbenefit of doubtinvestigation before FIRdelay in FIRpolice station identificationdelayed FSL transmissiondouble presumption of innocence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal acquittal appeal challenges the judgment of the Sessions Judge, Usta Muhammad, whereby respondents were acquitted of charges under sections 324, 427, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal questions involved the legality of conducting an investigation prior to the registration of an FIR, the evidentiary value of delayed FIRs, identification parades conducted at police stations, and the delayed transmission of crime empties and weapons to the Forensic Science Laboratory. The Balochistan High Court held that the police committed a material illegality by initiating an investigation prior to registering the FIR under section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, that unexplained delay in lodging the FIR creates a reasonable doubt, that police station identification without a formal parade is valueless, and that tainted recovery evidence cannot corroborate the prosecution's case. Consequently, the High Court upheld the acquittal, emphasizing that the respondents enjoyed a double presumption of innocence and that the trial court's judgment was neither perverse nor arbitrary. The appeal was dismissed in limine.

  Questions settled

  • Does an investigation conducted by the police prior to the formal registration of an FIR vitiate the prosecution case?
  • Can an identification of an accused conducted at a police station without holding a formal identification parade be legally relied upon?
  • What is the effect of unexplained delay in the lodgment of an FIR on the prosecution case?
  • Does the simultaneous delayed sending of crime empties and recovered weapons to the Forensic Science Laboratory render the recovery inconclusive?
  • What grounds are required to interfere with an order of acquittal that carries a double presumption of innocence?
  Read full judgment →
• Azhar Ali alias Zeeba vs The State2024 MLD 1407 · Balochistan High Court · 2023-04-10
  post-arrest bailcontrol of narcotic substancesnon-association of private witnessesfurther inquirymala fide prosecutionpolice testimony
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal bail application was filed by the applicant, Azhar Ali alias Zeeba, seeking post-arrest bail in case FIR No. 22 of 2023 registered under Section 9(1)3C of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, at Police Station Hub, District Lasbela, concerning the alleged recovery of 3000 grams of charas and a pistol. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to post-arrest bail given the alleged non-compliance with Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 regarding private witnesses in a populated area, and prior mala fides arising from a complaint filed by the applicant's mother against the local SHO. The Balochistan High Court held that the absence of private witnesses from a populated area, coupled with the prior legal proceedings initiated by the applicant's mother against police officials, made the case one of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. The court laid down the principle that when a narcotics case relies solely on police witness testimony without associating available private mashirs from a populated locality, and where prior mala fides and counter-complaints exist, the matter falls within the scope of further inquiry, warranting the grant of post-arrest bail.

  Questions settled

  • Whether failure to associate private witnesses from a populated area during a narcotics recovery makes the case one of further inquiry for the purpose of bail?
  • Does a prior complaint filed by an accused person's family against local police create a ground of mala fides supporting post-arrest bail?
  • Is an accused entitled to post-arrest bail when the prosecution case rests entirely on police officials' evidence requiring minute scrutiny?
  Read full judgment →
• Ayaz alias Siko vs The State2024 YLR 1617 · Balochistan High Court · 2022-10-07
  narcotic possessionchain of custodychemical examiner reportbenefit of doubtsafe custodyacquittalcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenges the conviction of the appellant under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, for the possession of 2000 grams of charas. The trial court had sentenced the appellant to one and a half years of rigorous imprisonment. The core legal question before the High Court was whether the prosecution successfully established the chain of custody and the safe transmission of narcotic samples to the chemical examiner, and whether the delay in recording witness statements rendered the prosecution's case doubtful. Upon review, the Court observed a significant 23-day delay in recording the statement of a key prosecution witness and noted that the prosecution failed to establish the safe custody and transmission of the samples from the place of occurrence to the Government analyst. Consequently, the Court held that the chain of custody was compromised, rendering the chemical examiner's report unreliable. Applying the principle that any break in the chain of custody entitles the accused to the benefit of the doubt, the Court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant.

  Questions settled

  • Does a delay in recording the statement of a prosecution witness under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 create reasonable doubt in the prosecution's case?
  • What is the legal consequence of a broken chain of custody regarding narcotic samples on the reliability of a chemical examiner's report?
  • Is an accused entitled to acquittal if the prosecution fails to prove the safe transmission of narcotic samples to the chemical analyst?
  Read full judgment →
• Asmatullah vs All Pakistan Wapda Hydro Workers Union, Balochistan (Cba)2024 PLC 46 · Balochistan High Court · 2020-08-31
  Constitutional PetitionMaintainabilityAlternate RemedyNational Industrial Relations CommissionTrade Union ElectionStatutory AppealFull Bench NIRC
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner filed a Constitutional Petition challenging the eligibility of respondent No.3 to serve as an office bearer/provincial chairman of a workers' union and disputing a notification regarding union election committees. Prior to invoking the High Court's jurisdiction, the petitioner had approached a Bench of the National Industrial Relations Commission (NIRC), which returned the grievance petition on jurisdictional grounds. The High Court addressed the core legal question of whether a constitutional petition is maintainable when a statutory remedy of appeal before the Full Bench of the NIRC under Section 58 of the Industrial Relations Act, 2012 is available. Dismissing the petition in limine, the Court held that constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution cannot be invoked as a matter of choice or bypassed simply because statutory procedures are perceived as lengthy. Where a statute provides an adequate self-contained appellate mechanism, an aggrieved party must exhaust that remedy rather than directly seeking extraordinary constitutional relief.

  Questions settled

  • Is a constitutional petition maintainable under Article 199 of the Constitution when an alternate statutory remedy of appeal under Section 58 of the Industrial Relations Act, 2012 is available?
  • Can a party bypass an available statutory appellate forum on the ground that the procedure prescribed by law is lengthy?
  • Does the High Court have jurisdiction to entertain a grievance rectifiable within the statutory appellate hierarchy of the National Industrial Relations Commission?
  Read full judgment →
• Asadullah vs Allah Dad and 2 others2024 PLD Balochistan 154 · Balochistan High Court · 2022-11-30
  hostile witnessunfavourable witnesscross-examination of own witnessrevision petitionstatement under section 161 CrPCcredibility of witness
  Summary & questions settled

  This revision petition was filed under sections 435 and 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to challenge an order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Pishin, which declined the prosecution and complainant's request to declare an eye-witness (PW-4) hostile and permit his cross-examination. The core legal question was whether a witness who gives testimony contrary to their previous statement under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, but without showing animosity or deliberate suppression of truth, qualifies as a hostile witness rather than an unfavourable witness. The Balochistan High Court held that a witness who merely gives an unfavourable statement without showing a hostile demeanor or a desire to conceal the truth cannot be declared hostile, and permitting cross-examination of such a witness under Article 150 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 is a matter of judicial discretion. The court established that an unfavourable witness is distinct from a hostile witness, and discrepancies alone do not justify cross-examination by the calling party unless the witness exhibits hostility or suppresses the truth.

  Questions settled

  • What is the distinction between a hostile witness and an unfavourable witness under criminal law?
  • Whether a witness can be declared hostile merely because their testimony conflicts with a previous statement recorded under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is it a matter of right or judicial discretion for a party to cross-examine its own witness under Article 150 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984?
  • What conditions must be established to entitle a party to invoke Article 150 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 for cross-examining its own witness?
  Read full judgment →
• Allah Muhammad alias Haji Malik Noorzai and others vs Government of Pakistan, Ministry of Interior through Secretary and 2 others2024 PLD Balochistan 115 · Balochistan High Court · 2022-08-23Read full judgment →
• Ali Murad Pirkani and others vs Abdul Malik and others2024 CLC 135 · Balochistan High Court · 2023-03-27Read full judgment →
• Ali Bukhsh and another vs The State2024 PCRLJ 1305 · Balochistan High Court · 2022-09-22
  post-arrest bailcommon intentionaerial firingfurther inquirybenefit of doubttentative assessmentmurder
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a criminal miscellaneous application by the applicants seeking post-arrest bail in a murder case registered under Sections 302 and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860. The core legal question before the Balochistan High Court was whether the applicants, who were nominated in the FIR with a general role of firing and aerial firing without being attributed the fatal injury to the deceased, were entitled to the concession of bail under the rule of further inquiry. The Court held that since no specific role of causing injury to the deceased was assigned to the applicants and the question of common intention required further determination after recording evidence, their case fell within the ambit of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. Consequently, the bail application was allowed, laying down the principle that mere nomination in an FIR with a general or aerial firing role, absent direct attribution of fatal injuries, warrants post-arrest bail, and that the benefit of doubt can be extended to an accused even at the bail stage.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an accused nominated in an FIR with a general role of firing without causing fatal injuries is entitled to post-arrest bail?
  • Can the benefit of doubt be extended to an accused at the bail stage?
  • Does mere presence and general attribution of firing attract the provisions of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Whether absconsion alone is sufficient to deny bail when an accused otherwise makes out a case on merits?
  Read full judgment →
• Akhtar Ali and others vs The State and others2024 YLR 2554 · Balochistan High Court · 2023-09-25
  criminal appealocular evidencesupplementary statementidentification paradeforensic science laboratory reportafterthoughtconvictionacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves a criminal appeal and revision petition against a trial court judgment convicting the appellants for murder and causing firearm injuries under the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860. The core legal questions concerned the reliability of ocular testimony, the evidentiary value of a supplementary statement implicating an accused not named in the FIR, and the weight of forensic reports where weapons and empties were submitted for analysis simultaneously. The Court held that while the prosecution successfully established the guilt of two appellants through consistent ocular accounts and medical evidence, the conviction of the third appellant, who was implicated solely through a supplementary statement after the FIR, was unsustainable. The Court ruled that such supplementary statements are afterthoughts and that identification in court without a prior identification parade is unsafe. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that sending crime weapons and empties to the forensic laboratory together diminishes the evidentiary value of the forensic report. Consequently, the Court maintained the convictions of two appellants while acquitting the third and dismissing the revision petition for sentence enhancement.

  Questions settled

  • Does the submission of crime weapons and bullet empties to a forensic laboratory simultaneously diminish the evidentiary value of the forensic report?
  • Is an accused person's nomination in a supplementary statement after the registration of an FIR considered a reliable basis for conviction?
  • Can an accused be convicted based on in-court identification if no formal identification parade was conducted during the investigation?
  Read full judgment →
• Ahmedullah and another vs Province of Balochistan through Addl. Chief2024 PLD Balochistan 129 · Balochistan High Court · 2023-05-04Read full judgment →
• Aftab Ashraf vs Khursheed Ashraf and others2024 CLC 295 · Balochistan High Court · 2022-11-22Read full judgment →
• Abdul Sattar and others vs Abdullah and others2023 CLC 1079, 2024 PLJ Quetta 7 · Balochistan High Court · 2022-11-23Read full judgment →
• Abdul Razzaq vs Secretary, Education Department, Quetta and 4 others2024 PLD Balochistan 92 · Balochistan High Court · 2022-06-29Read full judgment →
• Abdul Razaq vs Babal and 5 others2024 YLR 2069 · Balochistan High Court · 2023-03-14
  appeal against acquittalbenefit of the doubtdelay in FIRdouble presumption of innocencemurderdacoityreappraisal of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the acquittal of the respondents by the trial court in a case arising out of an FIR registered under Sections 302, 396, and 397 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal questions involved the assessment of evidence in an appeal against acquittal, the effect of an inordinate delay in lodging the FIR, and the standard of proof required when minor or general roles are attributed to accused persons without specific overt acts. The Balochistan High Court held that the trial court rightly extended the benefit of the doubt to the respondents, noting unexplained delay in reporting the crime, failure to examine material witnesses, and lack of any specific overt act attributed to the surviving respondent. The court reiterated that an accused person who has earned an acquittal enjoys a double presumption of innocence, and interference is warranted only in cases of gross misreading of evidence or miscarriage of justice. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • What are the principles for interfering with an acquittal judgment in criminal appeals?
  • What is the legal effect of an inordinate delay in lodging an FIR without a plausible explanation?
  • Does the mere presence of an accused without a specific overt act warrant conviction under criminal law?
  • When should the benefit of the doubt be extended to an accused person in a criminal trial?
  Read full judgment →