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. 79,348 judgments in total from the Lahore High Court.

• Faiz Muhammad Mate vs Syed Muhammad Zafar Hussain and 2 others1985 CLC 2352 · Lahore High Court · 1984-11-04Read full judgment →
• Faiz Ahmad vs The State1985 MLD 717 · Lahore High Court · 1982-05-02Read full judgment →
• Fa Z Al vs Muhammad Zaman1985 CLC 500 · Lahore High Court · 1984-10-14Read full judgment →
• F a Z Al K Arim vs Member Board of Revenue and others1985 CLC 64 · Lahore High Court · 1984-07-17Read full judgment →
• Ejaz Shah vs The State1985 MLD 48 · Lahore High Court · 1984-06-12Read full judgment →
• Ehsanullah Khan vs The State1985 P Cr. L J 1125 · Lahore High Court · 1984-12-09Read full judgment →
• Dulla and 4 others vs The State1985 P Cr. L J 2394 · Lahore High Court · 1985-03-30Read full judgment →
• Drilco Ltd. vs Central Board Of Revenue And OtherPTCL 1985 (CL.) 163 · Lahore High Court · 1980-10-06Read full judgment →
• Dr. Zafar Iqbal vs Additional District Judge, Okara and others1985 CLC 2893 · Lahore High Court · 1985-05-25Read full judgment →
• DR. Syed Sajjad Haider vs Punjab Public Service Commission1985 PLC (C.S.) 1005 · Lahore High Court · 1984-12-04Read full judgment →
• DR. Khalid Saifullah Khan and 2 Others vs Malik Khizar Hayat and 41985 PLD Lahore 601 · Lahore High Court · 1985-01-23Read full judgment →
• Dost Muhammad vs The State1985 P Cr. L J 1592 · Lahore High Court · 1982-10-29Read full judgment →
• Dost Muhammad vs Mst. Maqsoodan Bibi and ANOTHERs1985 PLD Lahore 340 · Lahore High Court · 1985-03-15Read full judgment →
• Dosa and 2 others vs The State1985 P Cr. L J 2021 · Lahore High Court · 1985-02-22Read full judgment →
• Din Muhammad vs The State1985 MLD 833 · Lahore High Court · 1985-05-04Read full judgment →
• Din Muhammad and others vs Mst. Sultan Bibi1985 CLC 2536 · Lahore High Court · 1984-11-30Read full judgment →
• Din Muhammad and 3 others vs The State1985 P Cr. L J 1946 · Lahore High Court · 1983-10-21Read full judgment →
• Dilloo and others vs The State1985 P Cr. L J 736 · Lahore High Court · 1984-11-18Read full judgment →
• Dilawar and anothers vs The State1985 P Cr. L J 1723 · Lahore High Court · 1985-03-17Read full judgment →
• Dhundoo and others vs Kundan and others1985 CLC 1895 · Lahore High Court · 1985-02-03Read full judgment →
• Dharia and others vs The State1985 MLD 1364 · Lahore High Court · 1984-12-01Read full judgment →
• Delay Khan and 6 Others vs The State and 2 Others1985 PLD Lahore 62 · Lahore High Court · 1984-03-25Read full judgment →
• Daroon Rubber Works Industries Ltd. (through Managing Director) vs Government of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Finance and 4 others1985 PTD 278 · Lahore High Court · 1984-03-25Read full judgment →
• Crescent Textile Mills vs Deputy Collector and others1985 MLD 143 · Lahore High Court · 1985-04-06Read full judgment →
• Crescent Textile Mills Ltd., Sargodha Road, Faisalabad. vs Deputy CollectorPTCL 1985 (CL.) 248 · Lahore High Court · 1985-04-06Read full judgment →
• Crescent Jute Products Ltd. vs Income-Tax Authorities and others1985 PTD 30 · Lahore High Court · 1983-11-13Read full judgment →
• Crescent Factories Vegetable Ghee Mills and 5 Others vs National1985 PLD Lahore 150 · Lahore High Court · 1984-12-03
  conditional leaveinterlocutory orderbanking recoveryconstitutional jurisdictionlegislative intentdiscretionary powerparallel litigation
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged an interlocutory order of the Special Court Banking, which granted the petitioners conditional leave to defend a recovery suit subject to depositing the entire suit amount in court under Order XXXVII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The petitioners contended that the condition was harsh, arbitrary, and defeated their right of defence, especially since they had raised fundamental jurisdictional issues. The respondents argued that the order was interlocutory, discretionary, and non-appealable under the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance 1979, and thus could not be bypassed via constitutional jurisdiction. The Lahore High Court dismissed the petition, holding that invoking extraordinary constitutional jurisdiction against non-appealable interlocutory orders defeats and deflects the clear legislative intent of expeditious disposal under special laws. The Court further noted that since the main suit and a pending review petition had been transferred to the High Court's original jurisdiction, the petitioners could seek their remedy through the pending review.

  Questions settled

  • Can an interlocutory order that is explicitly non-appealable under a special statute be challenged through the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court?
  • Does the imposition of a condition of cash deposit for leave to defend under Order XXXVII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 constitute an excess of jurisdiction amenable to writ jurisdiction?
  • Whether invoking constitutional jurisdiction to bypass statutory bars on interlocutory appeals defeats and deflects the legislative intent of a special recovery law?
  Read full judgment →
• Crescent Boards Ltd., Lahore vs Income-Tax Officer, Central Circle VIII, Lahore1985 PTD 276 · Lahore High Court · 1984-03-03Read full judgment →
• Commissioner Of Sales Tax Zone, a-Lahore vs New Al-Fateh ChemicalPTCL 1985 (CL.) 226 · Lahore High Court · 1984-01-18Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income-Tax, Lahore vs Messrs Noon Sugar Mills Ltd.1985 PTD 698 · Lahore High Court · 1984-01-27Read full judgment →
• Commission on Ecumenical Mission and 13 others vs Government of Punjab and 4 others1985 CLC 2359 · Lahore High Court · 1984-10-30Read full judgment →
• Climax Engineering Company Ltd., Gujranwala vs Shabib Ahmad and another1985 PLC 400 · Lahore High Court · 1984-12-22
  industrial disputetermination of servicemisconductestoppelback benefitsconstitutional petitionlabour law
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged the concurrent findings of the Punjab Labour Court and the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal, which ordered the reinstatement of an employee with back benefits. The core legal question was whether an employee, by accepting payment of dues for past services upon termination, is estopped from challenging the legality of their dismissal under Section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. The Court held that the acceptance of earned wages does not equate to an acceptance of the termination or a waiver of the right to contest it. The Court reasoned that a worker is entitled to payment for services rendered and cannot be expected to forego such wages to maintain a legal challenge. Furthermore, the Court found the employer's dismissal of the employee for refusing to accept a termination order to be perverse. The principle established is that receiving earned dues does not operate as an estoppel against challenging a dismissal, particularly where the receipt does not explicitly signify acceptance of the dismissal's validity. The petition was dismissed in limine.

  Questions settled

  • Does the acceptance of earned wages by an employee upon termination preclude them from challenging the dismissal under Section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969?
  • Can an employer dismiss an employee for the sole reason of refusing to accept a termination order?
  • Does a general receipt of dues signed by an employee operate as an estoppel against challenging the validity of their dismissal?
  Read full judgment →
• Chiragh and others vs The State1985 P Cr. L J 2630 · Lahore High Court · 1985-06-02Read full judgment →
• Chiragh and 4 mumss vs Nizam Din and 4 Others1985 PLD Lahore 101 · Lahore High Court · 1984-09-12Read full judgment →
• Chanan Din vs Settlement Commissioner (Land) and others1985 CLC 1877 · Lahore High Court · 1985-03-18Read full judgment →
• Chaitna a ppellant vs The State1985 P Cr. L J 1151 · Lahore High Court · 1985-02-11Read full judgment →
• Chairman Town Committee, Ghakhar vs Malik Muhammad Nawaz1985 MLD 152(2) · Lahore High Court · 1985-07-01Read full judgment →
• Chahat and others vs Abdul Khaliq and others1985 CLC 2988 · Lahore High Court · 1985-02-09Read full judgment →
• Ch.Muhammad Nawaz vs Ch.Muhammad Hussain1985 CLC 2829 · Lahore High Court · 1985-04-05Read full judgment →
• Ch.Muhammad Ismail vs S.M. Ehsan and others1985 CLC 2668 · Lahore High Court · 1984-06-23Read full judgment →
• Ch. Sher Ali vs The Commissioner, Faisalabad Division, Faisalabad and 21985 PLD Lahore 280 · Lahore High Court · 1985-01-26Read full judgment →
• Ch. Sami Ullah vs 'Muhammad Ashiq Abdali and Others1985 PLD Lahore 483 · Lahore High Court · 1985-06-02Read full judgment →
• Ch. Muhammad Hussain vs Naseer Ahmad and another1985 MLD 1586 · Lahore High Court · 1985-03-17Read full judgment →
• Ch. Muhammad Ashraf vs The State1985 P Cr. L J 657 · Lahore High Court · 1984-11-02Read full judgment →
• Ch. Muhammad Amin vs The State1985 PLD Lahore 440 · Lahore High Court · 1985-05-18Read full judgment →
• Ch. Ghulam Rasool vs Sardar Ghulam Farid and others1985 MLD 1387 · Lahore High Court · 1984-03-24Read full judgment →
• Ch. Ghulam Mujtaba vs Chief Settlement Commissioner1985 MLD 295 · Lahore High Court · 1984-12-28Read full judgment →
• Ch. Ehsan Nabi vs Returning Officer/A.C. and another1985 CLC 2965 · Lahore High Court · 1984-06-11Read full judgment →
• Caroline Rehman vs Chairman, Union Council1985 CLC 2855 · Lahore High Court · 1985-04-19Read full judgment →
• Captain A.A. a Ziz vs Dr. M.A.A. Aziz and others1985 P Cr. L J 1926 · Lahore High Court · 1985-04-29Read full judgment →
• Capt. Shahid Saleem Lone and others vs Ata-Ur-Rahman and others1985 CLC 2555 · Lahore High Court · 1984-09-29
  suit against dead personnullity of proceedingsspecific performancelegal representativeslimitation periodwrit jurisdictionrevisional orderamendment of plaint
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition challenges a trial court order that permitted the amendment of a plaint to implead the legal heirs of a deceased defendant in a suit for specific performance. The core legal question was whether a suit can be instituted against a person who is already deceased and whether legal representatives can be impleaded after the limitation period has expired. The Court held that a suit filed against a dead person is a nullity ab initio. While Order XXII, Rule 4(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, as amended by the Law Reforms Ordinance 1972, allows for a judgment to be pronounced against a defendant who dies during the pendency of proceedings, it does not authorize the initial filing of a suit against a deceased individual. Furthermore, the Court ruled that legal representatives cannot be brought on record after the expiry of the limitation period. Consequently, the orders permitting the impleading of the heirs were declared void, though the suit was allowed to proceed against the remaining living defendants.

  Questions settled

  • Can a civil suit be validly instituted against a person who is already deceased?
  • Does the amendment to Order XXII, Rule 4(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 allow for the institution of a suit against a dead person?
  • Can the legal representatives of a deceased defendant be impleaded in a suit after the expiry of the period of limitation?
  • Is a writ petition maintainable against an order passed by a District Court in revision?
  Read full judgment →
• Budha Khan vs Ghulam Mustafa1985 CLC 1200 · Lahore High Court · 1984-11-26Read full judgment →
• Bore Muhammad vs The State1985 P Cr. L J 2511 · Lahore High Court · 1985-06-22Read full judgment →
• Bootey Khan and 2 others vs The State1985 P Cr. L J 2100 · Lahore High Court · 1985-02-11Read full judgment →
• Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, La H Ore vs Syed1985 CLC 657 · Lahore High Court · 1984-10-31
  civil revisiondamages for mala fidesstatutory immunityeducational boardlimitation at appellate stagerevisional jurisdictiongood faith
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision was filed by the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Lahore, challenging the appellate judgment and decree of the Additional District Judge, which reversed the trial court's dismissal and decreed the respondent's suit for damages and declaration with costs. The respondent, a candidate wrongfully shown to have failed the Secondary School Examination in 1963 due to alleged departmental malice against his father, discovered years later that he had passed in the first division. The primary questions concerned whether the suit was barred under Sections 27 and 29 of the West Pakistan (Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Lahore) Ordinance, 1961, whether damages for mental agony and career loss were justified due to mala fides, whether the revisional court could overturn appellate findings of fact, and whether a plea of limitation could be entertained for the first time on appeal. The Lahore High Court held that statutory immunity does not protect actions taken with malice and without good faith. Concurring with the appellate court, it affirmed that factual findings cannot be disturbed under Section 115 CPC absent jurisdictional defect or material irregularity, and that an uncontroverted plea of limitation requiring fresh evidence cannot be introduced belatedly. The revision was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether statutory immunity under Sections 27 and 29 of the West Pakistan (Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Lahore) Ordinance 1961 protects the Board when its actions are proven to be mala fide and not taken in good faith?
  • Can the High Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 interfere with findings of fact recorded by the first appellate court absent any jurisdictional defect, illegality, or material irregularity?
  • Can a defendant raise a plea of limitation for the first time at the appellate stage when such plea was not pleaded in the written statement, no issue was framed, and deciding it would require evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Bhoor Mal and others vs Mst. Sakina Bibi and others1985 MLD 358 · Lahore High Court · 1985-02-17Read full judgment →
• Bhagmal vs Himmat Khan and others1985 P Cr. L J 1175 · Lahore High Court · 1985-02-15Read full judgment →
• Begum Masooda Abdul Haque vs Messrs Shan-E-Mustafa Production1985 CLC 671 · Lahore High Court · 1984-10-13
  rejection of plaintcause of actioncopyright infringementplagiarismcivil procedureinterim relieftrial on merits
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal is directed against an order passed by the Additional District Judge rejecting a plaint under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 in a suit filed under Section 65 of the Copyright Ordinance 1962 for alleged copyright infringement and plagiarism of a cinematographic work. The core legal question is whether a trial court can look beyond the averments in the plaint, such as considering the defence or documents produced, when deciding an application for rejection of a plaint on the ground of disclosing no cause of action. The Lahore High Court held that while considering the rejection of a plaint under Order VII, Rule 11(a) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, only the averments contained in the plaint can be examined, and the trial court erred in analyzing the merits and the defence at the inception stage. The court laid down the principle that the power to reject a plaint is an exception to the general rule that suits should be decided on merits after framing issues and recording evidence, and that the merits of the case or the likelihood of success are wholly irrelevant at the stage of determining whether a cause of action is disclosed.

  Questions settled

  • Can a court look beyond the averments in the plaint when deciding an application for rejection of a plaint under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Is the likelihood of the plaintiff succeeding at trial a relevant consideration for rejecting a plaint under Order VII, Rule 11(a) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Does the denial of interim relief provide a legal justification for ordering the rejection of a plaint?
  Read full judgment →
• Before Zia Mahmood Mirza, Ghulam Haider and others vs Member, Board1985 CLC 2998 · Lahore High Court · 1984-05-16Read full judgment →
• Before Sardar Muhammad Dogar, Syed Aley Ahmad vs Member, Board of Revenue and others1985 CLC 2642 · Lahore High Court · 1983-02-12Read full judgment →
• Before Manzoor Hussain Sial, Mst. Javid Sultana vs Amanullah Khan and others1985 CLC 2851 · Lahore High Court · 1985-02-24Read full judgment →
• Before J Amanat Ali and others vs The State1985 MLD 1419 · Lahore High Court · 1984-12-21Read full judgment →
• Before GuZ Zarin Kiani, Hafiz Ziauddin vs Anjuman Jamia Masjid1985 CLC 2936 · Lahore High Court · 1985-02-02Read full judgment →
• Before C. A. Rahman, Raja Liaqat Ali Kiian vs Mst. Parveen Ak Iitar1985 CLC 2686 · Lahore High Court · 1985-03-09Read full judgment →
• Bashir vs The State1985 MLD 867 · Lahore High Court · 1983-12-13Read full judgment →
• Bashir and anothers vs The State1985 P Cr. L J 2575 · Lahore High Court · 1985-07-05Read full judgment →
• Bashir Ali Shah vs The State1985 P Cr. L J 515 · Lahore High Court · 1984-10-28Read full judgment →
• Bashir Ahmed and another vs Zafar1985 MLD 652 · Lahore High Court · 1984-02-06Read full judgment →
• Bashir Ahmad vs The District Judge, Sahiwal and 3 others1985 MLD 98 · Lahore High Court · 1985-05-14Read full judgment →
• Bashir Ahmad vs Qasim Ali and 3 others1985 MLD 382 · Lahore High Court · 1985-05-24Read full judgment →
• Bashir Ahmad vs Mushtaq Ahmad1985 PLD Lahore 112 · Lahore High Court · 1984-11-11
  court-feedeclaratory suitimmovable propertymortgage deedconsequential reliefcivil revision
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition arose from a suit filed by the petitioner seeking a declaration that an agreement deed showing the mortgage of his house in favour of the respondent was void, illegal, and procured by fraud, alongside a permanent injunction. The trial court directed the petitioner to pay court-fee based on the mortgage money mentioned in the deed, relying on clause (iv-A) of section 7 of the Court Fees Act, 1870, introduced by the Punjab Finance Act, 1973. The core legal question was whether a suit challenging a mortgage deed falls under clause (iv-A) of section 7 requiring court-fee according to the property value, or under sub-clause (c) of clause (iv). The Lahore High Court held that clause (iv-A) applies only when the plaintiff's claim is based on an alleged sale, gift, exchange, or mortgage. Where a plaintiff challenges a mortgage set up by the defendant and bases their suit on their own title rather than the mortgage, the suit falls under sub-clause (c) of clause (iv). The revision was accepted and the trial court's order was set aside.

  Questions settled

  • Does a suit for a declaratory decree challenging a mortgage deed attract the provisions of clause (iv-A) of section 7 of the Court Fees Act 1870?
  • When is a plaintiff required to pay court-fee according to the value of immovable property under section 7 of the Court Fees Act 1870?
  • Does a plaintiff challenging a mortgage set up by the defendant have the liberty to value the relief sought under sub-clause (c) of clause (iv) of section 7 of the Court Fees Act 1870?
  Read full judgment →
• Bashir Ahmad vs Municipal Committee, Faisalabad and others1985 CLC 2379 · Lahore High Court · 1985-02-03Read full judgment →
• Bashir Ahmad vs Muhammad Jalil and others1985 CLC 2482 · Lahore High Court · 1984-11-24Read full judgment →
• Bashir Ahmad vs D.C., Sialkot and others1985 PLC (C.S.) 1067 · Lahore High Court · 1985-01-18Read full judgment →
• Bashir Ahmad vs Barkat Ali and others1985 CLC 2651 · Lahore High Court · 1983-04-01Read full judgment →
• Bashir Ahmad vs Amir Ahmad1985 MLD 968 · Lahore High Court · 1982-05-08Read full judgment →
• Bashir Ahmad vs Additional District Judge, Gujrat and 2 others1985 CLC 2485 · Lahore High Court · 1984-10-19
  ejectmentbona fide personal requirementsolitary statement of landlordcross-objectionsconstitutional jurisdictionappellate court dutydefault in rent
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition arises from an ejectment proceeding initiated by the landlord, Bashir Ahmad, against his tenant for default in rent, personal requirement, and damage to the property. The Rent Controller ordered eviction solely on the ground of default, ruling against the landlord on personal requirement and damage. The tenant's appeal was accepted by the Additional District Judge, who dismissed the eviction petition and held that the landlord's solitary statement was insufficient to prove personal need. The Lahore High Court examined the matter in its constitutional jurisdiction and held that the appellate judge misread the record by ignoring other witnesses produced by the landlord, and erred in law by holding that a landlord's solitary statement is insufficient to prove bona fide personal need. The Court ruled that a party who succeeds substantially on the final order may support the judgment on issues decided against him without filing a cross-objection or separate appeal, as cross-objections are co-related to the right of appeal. The writ petition was allowed, the appellate judgment was set aside, and the case was remanded to the lower appellate court for a fresh decision.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the solitary statement of a landlord is sufficient in law to prove bona fide personal requirement for the eviction of a tenant?
  • Can a respondent support a trial court's order on issues decided against him in an appeal filed by the opposite party without filing cross-objections or a separate appeal?
  • What is the scope and duty of the first appellate court regarding the independent re-examination and weighing of evidence in rent proceedings?
  • Whether findings of fact recorded by courts below can be examined in the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court?
  Read full judgment →
• Bashir Ahmad through Legal Heirs vs Shaikh Muhammad Rafiq, Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner, Lahore and 10 others1985 MLD 448 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Bashir Ahmad and others vs The State1985 P Cr. L J 1575 · Lahore High Court · 1982-05-28Read full judgment →
• Bashir Ahmad and anothers vs The State1985 P Cr. L J 2397 · Lahore High Court · 1985-04-12Read full judgment →
• Bashir Ahmad and another vs The State1985 MLD 877 · Lahore High Court · 1985-02-17Read full judgment →
• Barkat Masih vs The State1985 P Cr. L J 2737 · Lahore High Court · 1984-11-17Read full judgment →
• Barkat and anothers vs The State1985 P Cr. L J 1276 · Lahore High Court · 1985-03-02Read full judgment →
• Barkat Ali vs The State1985 P Cr. L J 1481 · Lahore High Court · 1984-11-04Read full judgment →
• Barka T Ali vs Met Sughran Bibi1985 MLD 307 · Lahore High Court · 1985-02-11Read full judgment →
• Baqa Muhammad- vs Muhammad Nawaz and Others1985 PLD Lahore 476 · Lahore High Court · 1985-06-07
  pre-emptionsecond appealamendment of pleadingsapprobate and reprobaterevisional jurisdictionjudicial admissionCode of Civil Procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This second appeal under Section 100, Code of Civil Procedure 1908, arose from a suit for possession through pre-emption. The appellant-vendee challenged the decree granted to the respondents-pre-emptors, seeking to introduce a new plea that he possessed superior pre-emption rights because the vendor was his wife. This plea had been rejected by the trial court and subsequently dismissed by the revisional court, which held the appellant bound by his earlier admission of the respondents' superior right. The core legal question was whether the appellant could re-agitate the rejected amendment application in the appeal against the final decree under Section 105, Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The Court held that the appellant was bound by his unequivocal admission of the respondents' superior right. Furthermore, the Court established that where a revisional court has adjudicated a matter on its merits, that decision is final and cannot be re-agitated in an appeal against the final decree. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, affirming that a party cannot approbate and reprobate by contradicting prior admissions or re-litigating settled revisional matters.

  Questions settled

  • Can a party who has made a judicial admission of a superior pre-emption right subsequently amend their pleadings to deny that right?
  • Does a decision by a revisional court on the merits of an interlocutory matter preclude the same issue from being re-agitated in an appeal against the final decree?
  • Under what circumstances can a non-appealable order be challenged in an appeal against the final decree under Section 105 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  Read full judgment →
• Bananas and 2 others vs Ghulam Muhammad and 5 others1985 CLC 1194 · Lahore High Court · 1985-01-29Read full judgment →
• Bakhsha and anothers vs The State1985 P Cr. L J 1924 · Lahore High Court · 1984-12-21Read full judgment →
• Bahawal and 2 others vs The State1985 P Cr. L J 2524 · Lahore High Court · 1985-05-20Read full judgment →
• Bahar Shah and 5 others vs The State1985 P Cr. L J 2453 · Lahore High Court · 1985-04-02Read full judgment →
• Bahadur vs Member, Board of Revenue1985 MLD 1282 · Lahore High Court · 1984-03-16Read full judgment →
• Bahadur Sher Khan vs Riaz Ahmad and ANOTHERs1985 PLD Lahore 630 · Lahore High Court · 1985-06-02Read full judgment →
• Bahadur Khan vs The State1985 P Cr. L J 1753 · Lahore High Court · 1984-07-28Read full judgment →
• Bahadur Ali vs Gulzar and 3 others1985 P Cr. L J 418 · Lahore High Court · 1984-09-17Read full judgment →
• Bagherehmat Trust vs Khalid Riaz1985 CLC 3009 · Lahore High Court · 1984-12-08Read full judgment →
• Bagga alias Sardar Khan vs Muhammad Bashir1985 MLD 197 · Lahore High Court · 1984-09-22Read full judgment →
• Badar-Ul-Huda vs Settlement Department1985 MLD 298(2) · Lahore High Court · 1985-06-02Read full judgment →
• Babar Rashid vs The State1985 PLD Lahore 288 · Lahore High Court · 1985-01-18Read full judgment →
• Babar Islam vs The State1985 P Cr. L J 2779 · Lahore High Court · 1984-11-12
  post-arrest bailnarcotics offenceheroin possessionProhibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Ordercriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a bail application filed by the petitioner, Babar Islam, who was charged under Articles 3 and 4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979, following his arrest for the alleged possession of 850 grams of heroin. The petitioner sought bail on the grounds that there were no reasonable grounds to believe he committed the offence, that the prosecution intended to rely solely on police witnesses without independent public witnesses, and that his continued detention was unnecessary as the investigation was complete. The State opposed the application. Upon review, the Court observed that the petitioner had been in custody since July 24, 1984, was not a previous convict, and was no longer required for investigative purposes. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case to avoid prejudicing the trial, the Court held that the petitioner was entitled to the grant of bail. Consequently, the Court admitted the petitioner to bail subject to the furnishing of a bail bond in the sum of Rs. 20,000 with one surety.

  Questions settled

  • Is an accused entitled to bail when the investigation is complete and they are no longer required for further inquiry?
  • Does the absence of public witnesses in a narcotics raid constitute sufficient grounds for the grant of bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Babar alias Pilla vs The State1985 MLD 1311 · Lahore High Court · 1984-03-27Read full judgment →