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. 14,893 judgments in total from the Peshawar High Court.

• Mst. Bakht Sawai and 9 others vs Yaseen and 4 others2011 PLJ Peshawar 278 · Peshawar High Court · 2011-06-03Read full judgment →
• Mst. Awal Jana alias Lal Jana and 2 others vs Mst. Totia and others2011 CLC 1231 · Peshawar High Court · 2011-03-18Read full judgment →
• Mst. Asmat Ara vs Mst. Rukhsana Shaheen and others2011 CLC 1927 · Peshawar High Court · 2011-04-08Read full judgment →
• Mst. Anila vs Mst. Rafia And 2 Others2011 YLR. 593 · Peshawar High Court · 2010-10-20Read full judgment →
• Mst. Aneeta vs The State and another2011 MLD 733 · Peshawar High Court · 2010-08-12
  post-arrest bailfurther inquirysupplementary statementmurderidentification of accusedbail for female accused
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns two post-arrest bail petitions filed by Mst. Aneeta and Sajid Khan in connection with the murder of a six-year-old child. The FIR was initially lodged against unknown persons, but the petitioners were subsequently nominated in a supplementary statement based on information provided by witnesses. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to bail given the nature of the evidence and their initial absence from the FIR. The Court held that while the male petitioner, Sajid Khan, was directly implicated by witnesses who observed him disposing of the body, the case against the female petitioners was distinguishable. The Court found the involvement of the female petitioners to be doubtful at this stage, as witnesses had only referred to a woman generally without naming her, rendering their case one of further inquiry. Consequently, the Court rejected the bail petition of the male accused due to the gravity of the offense and the direct evidence against him, while granting bail to the female petitioners, establishing that the absence of a name in an FIR does not necessarily imply mala fides, but specific evidence is required to link individual accused to the crime.

  Questions settled

  • Does the absence of an accused's name in the initial FIR automatically entitle them to bail?
  • Is the case of a female accused entitled to different consideration under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when the evidence against her is based on general descriptions rather than specific identification?
  • Does the naming of an accused in a supplementary statement, following an initial FIR against unknown persons, constitute sufficient grounds to deny bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Amtari and others vs Mst. Hakim Jan and others2011 YLR 58 · Peshawar High Court · 2010-09-20Read full judgment →
• Mst. Amina Bibi vs Attaullah Wazir and 3 others2011 CLC 384 · Peshawar High Court · 2010-11-23Read full judgment →
• Mst Maryam Bibi And Another vs Senior Member Board Of Revenue, N.W.F.P., Peshawar And 8 OtherK.L.R. 2011 Revenue Cases 86 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• Mrs. Rania Ibrahim Qureshi vs District & Sessions Judge, Abbottabad2011 P Cr. LJ 594 · Peshawar High Court · 2010-12-09
  habeas corpuschild custodyguardians and wardsconstitutional petitionillegal detentionfamily dispute
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed against the order of the District and Sessions Judge, Abbottabad, which dismissed the petitioner's application under section 491, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 for the recovery of two minor children. The core legal question was whether habeas corpus proceedings under section 491 or constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 can be invoked to resolve child custody disputes between estranged spouses where no illegal or improper detention is established. The Peshawar High Court held that habeas corpus proceedings are summary in nature and generally inappropriate for adjudicating child custody disputes between parents, which require recording of evidence. The Court ruled that such matters must be agitated before the competent court under the Guardians and Wards Act. The petition was consequently dismissed, upholding the impugned order and recalling the interim custody arrangement.

  Questions settled

  • Whether habeas corpus under section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 can be invoked for the custody of minor children in disputes between spouses?
  • Can constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 be utilized to resolve conflicting claims of child custody?
  • Is a summary procedure appropriate for determining the suitability of parents to retain custody of minors?
  Read full judgment →
• Mosan Khan and 2 others vs Government of N.-W.F.P. through Secretary2011 PTD 2753 · Peshawar High Court · 2011-03-29Read full judgment →
• Mosam Khan and 2 others vs Government of N.-W.F.P. through Secretary2011 CLC 1994 · Peshawar High Court · 2011-03-29Read full judgment →
• Moatamir Al-Alam Al-Islami (Foundation) through Secretary2011 PLJ Peshawar 76 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• Miss Sayeda Saira Bokhari vs Federal Secretary, Ministry of Housing2011 MLD 10 · Peshawar High Court · 2010-09-30Read full judgment →
• Miss Rukhsana Qureshi vs Province of N.-W.F.P. through Secretary2011 PLC (C.S.) 495 · Peshawar High Court · 2010-11-16
  regularizationcivil servantproject employeeestoppelterms and conditions of servicejurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed by Miss Rukshana Qureshi, a Computer Operator, seeking declarations that she is a regular civil servant of the Department entitled to pay at par with BPS-11 and to an allotment of a plot in the Regi Model Township Scheme. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, initially appointed on a project basis and subsequently adjusted against a regular post and promoted via the Departmental Promotion Committee, could be treated as a contract employee due to procedural lapses by the department. The Peshawar High Court held that the respondents were estopped from claiming the petitioner was a contract employee after treating her as a regular civil servant for years, and that an employee cannot suffer detriment due to the department's own non-observance of procedural formalities. The court laid down the principle that the government cannot benefit from its own administrative lapses or procedural irregularities in making appointments when the employee is otherwise qualified and has served in a regular capacity for a prolonged period.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an employee can be denied regular civil servant status due to initial procedural irregularities committed by the department itself?
  • Does the acceptance of a downgraded regular post and subsequent promotion through the Departmental Promotion Committee confer regular status upon an employee?
  • Can the High Court grant relief regarding pay fixation and terms and conditions of service in view of the bar contained in Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  Read full judgment →
• Misal Khan vs Managing Director Corporate, Member Karachi Stock2011 PLJ Peshawar 267 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• Misal Khan vs Managing Director Corporate Member, Karachi Stock2011 CLC 1473 · Peshawar High Court · 2011-04-25Read full judgment →
• Mirza Muhammad and another vs Muhammad Sherin and 4 others2011 PLD Peshawar 41 · Peshawar High Court · 2010-06-15Read full judgment →
• Mir Qasim Khan vs Syed Zafar Ali Shah And 6 Others2011 YLR 816 · Peshawar High Court · 2010-10-14
  quashment petitionforged power of attorneySection 561-A CrPCinherent jurisdictionSection 195(1)(c) CrPCSection 467 PPCmaintainability of complaintcriminal revision
  Summary & questions settled

  This quashment petition challenged an order by the Additional Sessions Judge, which dismissed a private complaint concerning a forged power of attorney on the grounds of non-maintainability under Section 195(1)(c) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The core legal question was whether the complaint was barred by Section 195(1)(c) CrPC and whether the High Court could exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 561-A CrPC to rectify the dismissal. The Court held that Section 195(1)(c) CrPC does not encompass offenses under Section 467 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, and the lower court erred in dismissing the complaint on technical grounds without addressing the merits. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the case was remanded for trial on merits. The judgment establishes that the High Court’s inherent powers under Section 561-A CrPC are a vital mechanism to prevent the abuse of judicial process and ensure justice when subordinate courts misinterpret jurisdictional provisions. It further clarifies that criminal prosecution for forgery committed outside the court is not precluded by the procedural requirements of Section 195(1)(c) CrPC.

  Questions settled

  • Does Section 195(1)(c) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 bar the prosecution of an offense under Section 467 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Can the High Court exercise inherent powers under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to set aside an order of a subordinate court that erroneously dismisses a complaint on maintainability grounds?
  • Is a power of attorney considered a valuable security under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Does the remedy of appeal under Section 417(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 preclude a party from filing a quashment petition under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 regarding jurisdictional issues?
  Read full judgment →
• Mir Hussain vs M/s. Hoavy Electric Complex etc.2011 PLJ Peshawar 141 · Peshawar High Court · 2011-02-28
  civil revisionreturn of plaintdeclaratory suitjurisdictionlimitationservice rightsPayment of Wages ActSpecific Relief Act
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition challenged the concurrent orders of the lower courts, which returned the petitioner's plaint under Order VII, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, regarding a suit for declaration of promotion and re-designation. The core legal questions concerned the limitation period for filing the suit following the dismissal of an appeal by the Supreme Court and whether a civil court possesses jurisdiction to adjudicate such a claim, or if it falls exclusively under the Payment of Wages Act 1936. The High Court held that the limitation period commenced from the date the Supreme Court dismissed the petitioner's appeal, rendering the suit timely. Furthermore, the Court held that a declaratory suit under Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act 1877 is maintainable because the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act 1936 lacks jurisdiction to resolve complex legal questions or disputes regarding the fundamental basis of employment contracts. Consequently, the Court set aside the lower courts' orders and remanded the case for trial on merits, affirming that where a legal right exists, a remedy must be provided.

  Questions settled

  • Does the limitation period for filing a civil suit after the dismissal of an appeal by the Supreme Court run from the date of the Supreme Court's order?
  • Can a civil court entertain a declaratory suit regarding service grade and promotion when the plaintiff is neither a civil servant nor a workman?
  • Does the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act 1936 have the jurisdiction to adjudicate complex disputes regarding the fundamental terms of an employment contract?
  • Is a suit for declaration under Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act 1877 maintainable when the dispute involves the determination of an employee's rank and grade?
  Read full judgment →
• Mir Hussain vs Messrs Heavy Electric Complex and others2011 PLC (C.S.) 1445 · Peshawar High Court · 2011-02-28
  revision petitionreturn of plaintjurisdiction of civil courtlimitation perioddeclaratory suitPayment of Wages Actservice mattersabatement of appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This revision petition challenges the concurrent judgments and orders of the lower courts whereby the petitioner's plaint in a declaratory suit concerning grade adjustment, promotion, and re-designation was returned under Order VII, Rule 10, C.P.C. The core legal questions involved the determination of limitation and the civil court's jurisdiction to entertain a declaratory suit where the employee is neither a civil servant nor a workman under labour laws. The Peshawar High Court held that the period of limitation for filing the suit ran from the date the Supreme Court dismissed the employee's appeal after declaring it abated, rendering the suit filed within time. The court further held that a declaratory suit under section 42 of the Specific Relief Act was competent since the employee's legal character and status regarding rank and grade were affected, and matters involving disputed contractual relationships and complicated questions of law could not be adjudicated by the summary authority under the Payment of Wages Act. The revision petition was allowed, and the case was remanded to the trial court for decision on merits.

  Questions settled

  • From which date does the period of limitation begin to run when an appeal before the Supreme Court is dismissed as abated with liberty to seek a remedy before an appropriate forum?
  • Whether a declaratory suit under section 42 of the Specific Relief Act is competent for an employee seeking adjustment of grade, rank, and pay who is neither a civil servant nor a workman?
  • Does the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act have jurisdiction to decide disputes where the very basis of the employment relationship or contract is in controversy?
  • Whether the lower courts were justified in returning the plaint under Order VII, Rule 10, C.P.C. on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction and limitation?
  Read full judgment →
• Minhajuddin vs Collector of Customs, Peshawar and others2011 PTD 862 · Peshawar High Court · 2010-12-20
  customs referenceforeign currency smugglingANF staffconfiscation of currencyCustoms Appellate Tribunaladditional groundsacquittal effect on customs proceedings
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner filed a reference before the Peshawar High Court challenging the judgment of the Customs Appellate Tribunal, which had restored the confiscation of foreign currency recovered from the petitioner at Peshawar Airport. The core legal questions involved whether ANF staff without notification under section 6 of the Customs Act, 1969 could recover or seize foreign currency, whether the Customs Appellate Tribunal could direct a party to take additional grounds, and whether the appeal before the Tribunal was filed by a competent person. The Court held that the actual recovery was effected by the Customs officials stationed at the adjacent counter rather than the ANF staff, rendering the applicability of section 6 moot. The Court further held that the Tribunal could exercise its discretion regarding additional grounds provided no prejudice was caused, and that the acquittal by a Special Judge does not automatically bar independent proceedings under the Customs Act. The reference was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether ANF staff, not notified as Customs Officers under section 6 of the Customs Act, 1969, could arrest, recover, or seize foreign currency?
  • Whether the Customs Appellate Tribunal can direct or suggest to a party before it to take certain additional grounds?
  • Whether an acquittal by a Special Judge Customs, Excise and Taxation affects the process and confiscation proceedings under the Customs Act, 1969?
  Read full judgment →
• Mian Sharif Shah vs Nawab Khan and 5 others2011 PLD Peshawar 86 · Peshawar High Court · 2010-12-08
  Illegal Dispossession Actright of appealstatutory interpretationsubstantive rightconstitutional petitionproperty grabbersland mafiajudicial subordinationwrit jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This reference was made to a Larger Bench of the Peshawar High Court to resolve a conflict between earlier decisions regarding the availability of a right of appeal or revision against judgments passed under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005. The Court examined whether Section 9 of the Act, which makes the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) applicable to proceedings, implicitly grants a right of appeal. The Court held that the right of appeal is a substantive right that must be expressly conferred by statute and cannot be inferred through the general application of procedural law or the concept of judicial subordination. It concluded that the legislature deliberately omitted the right of appeal to ensure the summary and expeditious disposal of cases involving property grabbers. Consequently, no right of appeal or revision exists under the Act. However, to prevent a miscarriage of justice, the Court ruled that aggrieved parties may invoke the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution. The Court further advised the Federal Government to amend the Act to provide a statutory right of appeal.

  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Siraj vs The State2011 MLD 958 · Peshawar High Court · 2010-06-02
  post-arrest bailnarcoticsconscious knowledgefurther inquiryillegal arrestmandatory provisionControl of Narcotic Substances Act
  Summary & questions settled

  This bail petition arises from a narcotics case where the petitioner sought release pending trial after being arrested in a vehicle containing ten kilograms of Charas concealed within the petrol tank. The core legal questions concerned whether the arrest of the petitioner by an Assistant Sub-Inspector, in violation of statutory rank requirements, vitiated the proceedings, and whether mere presence in a vehicle containing concealed narcotics established sufficient connection to the offence. The Court held that the petitioner was entitled to bail. It affirmed that the provision under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, requiring arrests to be made by an officer not below the rank of Sub-Inspector, is mandatory, not directory; its violation entitles the accused to bail. Additionally, the Court determined that the prosecution failed to establish prima facie that the petitioner had conscious knowledge of the concealed narcotics or ownership of the vehicle. Consequently, as the case required further inquiry and investigation was complete, the Court granted the bail petition, ordering the petitioner’s release upon furnishing bail bonds.

  Questions settled

  • Can an officer below the rank of Sub-Inspector effect an arrest under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997?
  • Does the mere presence of an accused in a vehicle containing concealed narcotics establish conscious knowledge of the offence?
  • Is the provision requiring an arrest to be made by an officer of at least Sub-Inspector rank under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 mandatory or directory?
  Read full judgment →
• Mohtamim Shah and others vs Deputy Collector and others2011 PTD 1105 · Peshawar High Court · 2011-03-08Read full judgment →
• Messrs National Steel Mills and Re-Rollers (Pvt.) Ltd., Hattar vs Collector, Sales Tax and Federal Excise, PeshawarPLJ 2011 Tax Cases (Pesh.) 57, 2011 PTD 1076 · Peshawar High Court · 2011-01-27
  sales taxvested right of appealretrospective legislationlimitation periodact of the courttax adjustmentappellate tribunal
  Summary & questions settled

  This sales tax reference before the Peshawar High Court arose from a dispute regarding the adjustment of carried forward sales tax amounts by a registered company, Messrs National Steel Mills and Re-rollers (Pvt.) Ltd. The central legal questions involved whether amendments introduced by the Finance Act, 2005 to sections 45-B and 46 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990 retrospectively barred the Sales Tax Department from pursuing appeals, whether the department's appeal was barred by limitation, and whether the Appellate Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction. The Court held that a vested right of appeal is a substantive right that remains unaffected by subsequent statutory amendments unless expressed otherwise, and thus the unamended law governed proceedings originating prior to the amendment. Furthermore, applying the maxim actus curiae neminem gravabit, the Court ruled that the time spent pursuing remedies in incorrect forums due to court directions could not prejudice the department. The High Court dismissed the reference, maintaining the Tribunal's decision which allowed the company an opportunity for post-facto verification of tax adjustments. The key principle laid down is that substantive rights of appeal accrued prior to statutory amendments are protected and remain intact, and procedural changes in forum or jurisdiction do not destroy vested rights.

  Questions settled

  • Whether amendments brought by the Finance Act, 2005 to sections 45-B and 46 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990 bar the Sales Tax Department from invoking appellate jurisdiction under the unamended law for proceedings initiated prior to the amendment?
  • Does a right of appeal constitute a substantive vested right that is protected against subsequent procedural changes or forum alterations in the absence of express retrospective intent?
  • Whether time spent prosecuting an appeal in wrong forums due to erroneous return of the memorandum by courts should be excluded for the purposes of limitation under the maxim actus curiae neminem gravabit?
  • Can the Appellate Tribunal set aside an order-in-original and direct verification of tax adjustments while remanding the matter for compliance?
  Read full judgment →
• Messrs Lucky Cement Limited through General Manager vs Federation2011 PLD Peshawar 57 · Peshawar High Court · 2010-12-07
  Writ petitionNatural gas supplyConstitutional mandatePriority of requirementsArticle 158Jurisdiction of High CourtConstitutional interpretationAgreements against ConstitutionGas producing province
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment addresses multiple writ petitions seeking uninterrupted supply of natural gas to petitioners in the Province of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (KPK), invoking Article 158 of the Constitution. The core legal question revolved around the interpretation of Article 158, which grants precedence to a gas-producing province in meeting its requirements, and whether this precedence is absolute or subject to other constitutional provisions like Article 172(3) or prior agreements. The court also considered its jurisdiction under Article 199 versus the Supreme Court's under Article 184(1) for disputes between a Province and the Federation. The Peshawar High Court allowed the petitions, holding that Article 158 mandates precedence for the gas-producing province, subject only to commitments existing on the Constitution's commencing day. Agreements contrary to this constitutional mandate are not binding. The court affirmed its jurisdiction, stating the petitions sought enforcement of a constitutional mandate, not a dispute between a Province and the Federation.

  Questions settled

  • Does a province where a natural gas well-head is situated have precedence over other parts of Pakistan in meeting its gas requirements?
  • Are agreements for gas supply that deviate from the mandate of Article 158 of the Constitution legally binding?
  • Can a High Court exercise jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution to enforce the mandate of Article 158, or is it exclusively a dispute between a Province and the Federation under Article 184(1)?
  • Does Article 172(3) of the Constitution, concerning joint vesting of mineral oil and natural gas, override the precedence granted to a gas-producing province under Article 158?
  Read full judgment →
• Messrs Ghani Corporation through Chief Executive vs Government of N.W.F.P. through Secretary Industries. Commerce, Mineral Development and 5 others2011 PLD Peshawar 1 · Peshawar High Court · 2010-06-17
  constitutional petitionmining leasepublic auctiontransparencypublic exchequerabuse of discretionvested rightextension of lease
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, Messrs Ghani Corporation, filed a constitutional petition under Article 199 seeking an extension of a mining lease for chromite over 902 acres in District Kohistan, which had expired in 1999. The petitioner contended that infrastructure investments and local disputes over surface rent justified a 20-year extension. The Court held that the petitioner had no vested right to an extension after the expiry of the initial and extended terms, especially given their failure to resolve local disputes. However, the Court observed a glaring illegality in the subsequent auction process where the Appellate Authority accepted a bid from respondent Messrs Sardar Ali for Rs. 1.2 million despite the Director-General of Mines having rejected the auction for lack of transparency and ordering a re-advertisement. The Court noted that similar leases in the same district fetched significantly higher revenues. Invoking its constitutional jurisdiction to protect public exchequer and ensure transparency, the Court set aside the allotment to the respondent and the Appellate Authority's order, directing a fresh decision in the public interest.

  Read full judgment →
• Messrs Gaggan Catering Service vs Messrs Balana Restaurant through Authorized Partner and others2011 CLC 1985 · Peshawar High Court · 2011-09-08
  temporary injunctionpublic contractinterim reliefprima facie casebalance of convenienceirreparable losscivil revision
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision from the Peshawar High Court arises out of a dispute regarding a catering contract awarded by the Pakistan International Airlines Corporation to Messrs Gaggan Catering Service, which was challenged by a rival pre-qualified contractor, Messrs Balana Restaurant, through a suit for declaration and permanent injunction along with an application for a temporary injunction. The trial court dismissed the injunction application, but the appellate court accepted the appeal and stayed the operation of the Letter of Intent. The core legal questions involved whether the appellate court properly exercised its discretion in granting interim relief that effectively amounted to granting the final relief sought in the suit, and whether the essential ingredients for a temporary injunction—specifically a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable loss—were satisfied. The High Court held that the appellate court erred in granting total relief at the interlocutory stage without recording evidence, especially where the contract had already been executed and any potential loss to the plaintiff was measurable in terms of money. The civil revisions were accepted, the appellate court's judgment was set aside, and the trial court's order dismissing the injunction was restored.

  Questions settled

  • Can a court grant total relief in the garb of an interim injunction during the pendency of a suit?
  • Whether an interim injunction should be refused if any potential loss to the plaintiff is measurable in terms of money?
  • Does the mere existence of a prima facie case entitle a plaintiff to a temporary injunction as a matter of right?
  • Can an appellate court interfere with the exercise of discretion by a trial court regarding a temporary injunction without establishing a perversity or illegality?
  Read full judgment →
• Messrs Delta CNG Station, Peshawar vs Federation of Pakistan, through Secretary Law, Islamabad and 5 others2011 PTD 104 · Peshawar High Court · 2010-09-28Read full judgment →
• Meraj Ahmad and another vs The State and another2011 P Cr. L J 988 · Peshawar High Court · 2010-12-24
  post-arrest baildelayed F.I.R.further inquiryidentification paradeterrorist attackcriminal conspiracyexplosive substances
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a criminal petition filed by Meraj Ahmad and another seeking post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No. 337 registered under sections 302, 353, 120-A, 120-B, 364, 436, 324, 148, 149, and 404 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, section 314 of the Explosive Substances Act, and section 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997 at Police Station Kabal, District Swat. The core legal question is whether an information report and statements of injured witnesses recorded after an unexplained delay of two years, without holding an identification parade, are sufficient to establish a prima facie connection of the accused with the crime to deny bail. The Peshawar High Court held that the highly delayed statements and vague allegations make the case one of further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The court laid down the principle that delayed implicatory statements without an identification parade, coupled with a lack of direct naming in the initial F.I.R., do not constitute sufficient grounds to refuse post-arrest bail.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an unexplained delay of two years in recording witness statements implicating an accused makes the case one of further inquiry for the purpose of bail?
  • Does the absence of an identification parade following a belated naming of accused persons weaken the prosecution's case at the bail stage?
  • Can bail be refused solely on the basis of the heinousness of the crime when prima facie connection is lacking?
  Read full judgment →
• Mehr Ali vs The State2011 MLD 131 · Peshawar High Court · 2010-08-20
  post-arrest bailnarcotics recoveryF.S.L. reportfurther inquirychars and opium
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter comes before the Peshawar High Court through a criminal bail petition filed by the petitioner, Mehr Ali, seeking post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No. 136 dated 10-7-2010 registered under section 9 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act and section 188 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Mulazai, District Tank, following the alleged recovery of 2000 grams of chars, 300 grams of opium, and a pistol from his possession. The core legal questions involve whether the absence of a Forensic Science Laboratory (F.S.L.) report on record and the lack of independent corroborative witnesses bring the case within the scope of further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The court held that the delayed F.S.L. report creating uncertainty as to the nature of the recovered substance, coupled with police-only witnesses for an occurrence on a thoroughfare, warrants further probe and entitles the accused to bail. The key principle laid down is that the failure of the prosecution to promptly place an F.S.L. report on record regarding alleged narcotics can constitute a ground for bringing the case under further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, justifying the grant of post-arrest bail.

  Questions settled

  • Does the absence of an F.S.L. report on the record bring a narcotics case under the ambit of further inquiry for the purpose of bail?
  • Whether the reliance solely on police officials as witnesses for an alleged recovery on a roadway warrants the grant of post-arrest bail?
  • Does the recovery of narcotics exceeding the prohibitory clause bar the grant of bail when the chemical examiner's report is missing?
  Read full judgment →
• Mehmood Shah and others vs Tamash Khan2011 C.L.R. 147 · Peshawar High Court · 2010-12-01Read full judgment →
• Mehmo.Od Shah and others vs Tamash Khan2011 PLD Peshawar 53 · Peshawar High Court · 2010-12-01Read full judgment →
• Mehboob Alam vs National Radio and Telecommunication2011 PLJ Peshawar 68 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• Mehandia vs Juma through L.Rs,2011 MLD 1081 · Peshawar High Court · 2011-01-14Read full judgment →
• Meeran Shah vs Sameen Ullah Khan and 5 others2011 CLC 413 · Peshawar High Court · 2010-10-19Read full judgment →
• MCB Bank Limited, Peshawar vs Messrs Tila Frontier Fruit Company and others2011 CLD 938 · Peshawar High Court · 2011-03-02
  recovery suitbanking courtburden of prooflimitation periodstatement of accountfinance facilityleave to defend
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arises from the dismissal of a recovery suit filed by the appellant Bank against the respondent loanee. The core legal questions were whether the Bank had sufficiently proven the existence of the finance facility and the outstanding debt, and whether the suit was barred by the law of limitation. The Banking Court had dismissed the suit, finding that the Bank failed to produce essential documentation, such as finance agreements for the alleged facilities, and that the statement of account was unreliable. The High Court upheld the dismissal, holding that the Bank failed to discharge its burden of proof. The Court emphasized that mere production of a certified copy of a statement of account is insufficient to establish liability when the entries are specifically denied; the Bank must prove the underlying transactions. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that the Limitation Act, 1908 applies to suits under the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001, and since the Bank failed to file the suit within the prescribed period or provide sufficient cause for the delay, the claim was time-barred.

  Questions settled

  • Is the mere production of a certified copy of a statement of account sufficient to charge a defendant with liability when the entries are disputed?
  • Does the Limitation Act 1908 apply to suits filed under the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance 2001?
  • What is the consequence of a plaintiff's failure to produce underlying finance agreements in a recovery suit against a loanee?
  • Can a banking suit be entertained after the period of limitation without the plaintiff showing sufficient cause for the delay?
  Read full judgment →
• Maqbool Alias Booli vs Shaukat Ali And Another2011 YLR 1207 · Peshawar High Court · 2010-11-10
  confessional statementcapital chargeweapon recoveryanti-terrorismretracted confessionbenefit of doubtcriminal appealacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and death sentence of the appellant recorded by the Anti-Terrorism Court under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and Section 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997 for the murders of two brothers. The core legal questions involved the voluntariness and evidentiary value of a retracted confessional statement and the legality of weapon recoveries made by the police. The Peshawar High Court held that the confessional statement was involuntary and legally flawed as the appellant was handed back to police custody and the magistrate failed to dispel fear, and further held that the weapon recovery was doubtful and tampered. The Court established that a retracted confession and suspicious recoveries cannot form the basis of a capital conviction in the absence of substantive or direct corroborative evidence. Consequently, the appeal was accepted, the conviction and sentence were set aside, and the appellant was acquitted.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a confessional statement loses its voluntary nature and evidentiary value when the accused is handed back to police custody after recording it?
  • Can a conviction on a capital charge be sustained solely on a retracted confession and disputed recoveries in the absence of direct substantive evidence?
  • Does compliance with Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 become mandatory when the investigating officer already possesses prior knowledge of the place of recovery?
  • Whether tampering with recovery memos and unexplained delays in sending crime empties to the forensic science laboratory vitiates the prosecution case?
  Read full judgment →
• Manzoor Ahmad and anothers vs Khan Muhammad and 35 others2011 MLD 189 · Peshawar High Court · 2010-07-02Read full judgment →
• Mamraiz vs The. State2011 MLD 708 · Peshawar High Court · 2010-07-29
  narcotics possessionomnibus recoverycriminal appealburden of proofpossession of contrabandacquittalPeshawar High Court
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves criminal appeals against the conviction and sentencing of the appellants under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, and Article 4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979. The appellants were convicted following a police raid on multiple cabins where large quantities of narcotics and liquor were recovered. The core legal question was whether a conviction could be sustained when the prosecution failed to attribute specific recovered contraband to individual appellants. The Peshawar High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish a nexus between the appellants and the recovered items. The court observed that the recovery was "omnibus" in nature, with items mixed from various cabins, and the investigating officer could not prove the appellants' ownership or possession of the specific cabins raided. Consequently, the court set aside the convictions and acquitted the appellants. The key principle laid down is that in cases of joint recovery, the prosecution must provide specific evidence linking individual accused to the contraband or the premises of recovery to sustain a conviction.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction for narcotics possession be sustained based on an omnibus recovery where the prosecution fails to link specific contraband to individual accused?
  • Is proof of ownership or possession of the premises required when narcotics are recovered from multiple locations during a police raid?
  • Does the failure of the prosecution to connect specific recovered items to individual appellants necessitate an acquittal?
  Read full judgment →
• Malik Suba and 8 others vs WAPDA through Chairman WAPDA Lahore and 6 others2011 MLD 560 · Peshawar High Court · 2010-11-26Read full judgment →
• Malik Mumtaz Khan vs Water and Power Development Authority2011 CLC 1586 · Peshawar High Court · 2011-04-29Read full judgment →
• Malik Mumtaz Khan vs Water & Power Development Authority, Pakistan2011 PLJ Peshawar 364 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• Malik Ghazi Khan vs Amin Khan and 13 others2011 MLD 597 · Peshawar High Court · 2010-07-16Read full judgment →
• Mahmood vs The State and another2011 YLR 1652 · Peshawar High Court · 2011-03-14
  post-arrest bailplea of alibiold age bailmurderblood feudprima facie involvement
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought post-arrest bail after his bail application was refused by the lower forums in a case registered under FIR No. 628 dated 19-10-2010 at Police Station Shahbaz Garhi, District Mardan, involving charges of murder and a blood feud. The core legal questions concerned the tentative assessment of the plea of alibi at the bail stage and whether advanced old age alone constitutes a sufficient statutory or judicial ground for the grant of bail. The Peshawar High Court held that the petitioner was directly charged in a promptly lodged FIR with supporting circumstantial and medical evidence, and that the disputed plea of alibi required deeper appreciation of evidence best left for the trial court. The Court further held that mere old age, unaccompanied by infirmity or sickness, does not furnish a sufficient ground for granting bail. Consequently, the bail petition was dismissed as meritless.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a plea of alibi can be conclusively evaluated at the bail stage in a capital punishment case?
  • Does mere old age of an accused constitute a sufficient ground for release on bail without supporting evidence of sickness or infirmity?
  Read full judgment →
• Liaqat Ali vs Abdul Wadood2011 CLC 139 · Peshawar High Court · 2010-10-15Read full judgment →
• Liaqat Ali Khan vs Aziz-Ur-Rehman2011 PLJ Peshawar 109 · Peshawar High Court · 2010-04-28Read full judgment →
• Liaqat Ali and others vs Mst. Mehar Sheda and others2011 PLD Peshawar 148 · Peshawar High Court · 2010-10-22Read full judgment →
• Liaqat Ali and others vs Hukam Khan2011 CLC 1034 · Peshawar High Court · 2010-06-11Read full judgment →
• Land Acquisition Collector/District Collector, Mardan and 5 others2011 CLC 1488 · Peshawar High Court · 2010-12-07Read full judgment →
• La L Zada vs D the State2011 YLR 377 · Peshawar High Court · 2010-12-03
  superdaritemporary custodybona fide purchasertampered chassis numberbogus registrationvehicle seizurecriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal petition was filed under Sections 516-A and 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, seeking the temporary custody (superdari) of a Toyota Corolla vehicle. The local police had seized the vehicle under Sections 523 and 550 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 due to the petitioner's initial failure to produce ownership documents, subsequently registering an FIR under Sections 419, 420, 468, and 471 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 against the seller for forgery and cheating. The State opposed the release, citing a forensic report indicating tampered chassis numbers and a bogus registration. The Peshawar High Court held that the petitioner was a bona fide purchaser who had paid valuable consideration, as supported by a sale deed and witness statements. Since the vehicle had no criminal history, was not stolen property, and had no rival claimants, the Court ruled that custody could not be denied solely on allegations of tampered chassis numbers or bogus registration. The petition was allowed, and superdari was granted to the petitioner subject to furnishing local surety bonds.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a bona fide purchaser of a vehicle is entitled to its temporary custody on superdari when the vehicle is seized due to a tampered chassis number and bogus registration?
  • Can the custody of a seized vehicle be refused to its last possessor solely on the ground of a tampered chassis number if there is no rival claimant or criminal history of theft?
  • What is the evidentiary value of a sale deed and witness statements recorded during an inquiry under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 in determining the right to superdari?
  Read full judgment →
• Kimya Gul though Legal Heirs vs Khan Muhammad and another2011 PLD Peshawar 108 · Peshawar High Court · 2010-10-08Read full judgment →
• Khush Dil Khan vs Haji Dilawar Khan2011 MLD 1993 · Peshawar High Court · 2011-07-13Read full judgment →
• Khurshid Khan vs Regional General Manager (Operation), Habib Bank2011 CLD 957 · Peshawar High Court · 2011-03-22Read full judgment →
• Liaqat Ali vs The State2011 P Cr. L J 59 · Peshawar High Court · 2010-07-19
  illegal emigrationdeceitful employment promisesanction of Federal Governmentdeemed sanctioninterested witnessesspecial court trialcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment and order of the Special Judge (Central) Anti-Corruption and Emigration, Peshawar, whereby the appellant was convicted under section 22(b) of the Emigration Ordinance, 1979 and sentenced to three years rigorous imprisonment with a fine. The prosecution alleged that the appellant deceitfully received money from the complainant on the false pretext of sending him to Malaysia for employment without possessing a valid overseas employment promoter licence. The core legal questions involved whether the trial could proceed without explicit sanction from the Federal Government and whether the prosecution successfully established the charge. The Peshawar High Court held that under the proviso to section 24(6) of the Emigration Ordinance, 1979, where the Federal Government neither grants nor refuses sanction within sixty days of a reference, such sanction is deemed to have been duly accorded, thereby validating the trial. The Court further held that the prosecution witnesses, despite being related to the complainant, were credible and corroborated by documentary evidence. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed and the conviction upheld.

  Questions settled

  • What is the legal effect under the Emigration Ordinance, 1979 if the Federal Government fails to respond to a reference for sanction within sixty days?
  • Can a conviction under section 22(b) of the Emigration Ordinance, 1979 be sustained on the testimony of related and interested witnesses without independent corroboration?
  • Whether a person running an unauthorized agency for sending people abroad can be prosecuted under the Emigration Ordinance, 1979?
  Read full judgment →
• Khizar Hayat and others vs Jehangir Khan Marwat and another2011 YLR 1686 · Peshawar High Court · 2011-02-21
  post-arrest bailbank embezzlementcriminal breach of trustprohibitory clausetentative assessmentfinancial crime
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from four consolidated criminal bail petitions filed by bank employees accused of embezzling millions of rupees from Habib Bank Limited, Ashiana Shopping Centre Branch, D.I. Khan, registered under sections 409, 420, 468, and 477-A of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question before the Peshawar High Court was whether the accused bank officials were entitled to post-arrest bail given the tentative assessment of the material collected during the investigation. The court held that the material on record, including bank records, audit findings, undertakings, and partial returns of the embezzled funds, prima facie connected the petitioners to the grave financial crimes, and that offenses committed by public functionaries and bank trustees against society warrant strict discretion and refusal of bail even if falling outside the prohibitory clause. The key principle laid down is that financial crimes and misappropriation of public or trust funds by bank functionaries constitute exceptional circumstances justifying the denial of bail at the tentative assessment stage.

  Questions settled

  • Whether bank employees involved in massive financial embezzlement and breach of trust are entitled to post-arrest bail?
  • Can bail be refused in cases involving offenses against society and public functionaries even if the maximum sentence does not fall strictly within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is deep scrutiny of evidence permissible at the bail stage under Pakistani criminal jurisprudence?
  Read full judgment →
• Khatoon Begum and others vs Khan Zaman and others2011 MLD 1813 · Peshawar High Court · 2011-08-08Read full judgment →
• Khanzada Habiburrehman Khan and 205 others vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Water and Powers, Islamabad and 9 others2011 PLD Peshawar 160 · Peshawar High Court · 2011-02-24Read full judgment →
• Khan Zaman vs Government of Pakistan through Secretary Ministry of Interior, Islamabad and 5 others2011 PLD Peshawar 47 · Peshawar High Court · 2010-10-28
  CNIC cancellationcitizenship verificationnatural justiceright to hearingNADRAadministrative lawwrit jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner challenged a notice issued by the National Database and Registration Authority (NADRA) directing him to surrender his Computerized National Identity Card (CNIC) on the allegation that he was an Afghan national. The petitioner contended that the notice was issued without a hearing and ignored his evidence of Pakistani citizenship. The Court examined the National Data Base and Registration Authority Ordinance, 2000, noting that while authorities have the power to cancel or impound cards under Section 18, this requires a formal order following a show-cause notice and an opportunity for the cardholder to be heard. The Court held that the impugned notice was merely a request for surrender under Section 17 and did not constitute a final order of cancellation under Section 18, making the respondents' argument regarding the availability of an alternative remedy via appeal premature. The Court emphasized that administrative decisions affecting citizenship status must be based on a full-fledged inquiry, scrutiny of evidence, and adherence to the principles of natural justice, specifically the right to a fair hearing. The petition was allowed, and the authority was directed to conduct a proper hearing.

  Questions settled

  • Does a notice to surrender a CNIC under Section 17 of the National Data Base and Registration Authority Ordinance, 2000 constitute a final order of cancellation appealable under Section 18(3)?
  • Is an administrative authority required to provide a personal hearing before cancelling or impounding a CNIC?
  • Can a CNIC be cancelled based solely on an internal report from a special branch without conducting an independent inquiry and providing the cardholder an opportunity to be heard?
  Read full judgment →
• Khan Afsar vs Shan Muhammad2011 CLC 516 · Peshawar High Court · 2010-12-08Read full judgment →
• Khan Afsar And 2 Others vs The State And Another2011 YLR 991 · Peshawar High Court · 2010-12-01
  criminal appealmurder trialbenefit of doubtocular evidencewitness credibilitysuppression of evidenceacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves a criminal appeal filed by appellants Khan Afsar, Khanwaiz, and Zar Khan against their conviction and life imprisonment sentences under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC) for the murder of two individuals. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had proven its case beyond reasonable doubt, given the alleged contradictions in the ocular evidence and the failure to produce material witnesses. The Peshawar High Court observed that the testimony of the eyewitnesses was inconsistent, riddled with improvements, and incompatible with medical evidence. Furthermore, the court noted that the prosecution suppressed material facts and withheld the best available evidence, specifically failing to produce a witness present at the scene. Consequently, the court held that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the appellants beyond a reasonable doubt. The convictions and sentences were set aside, and the appellants were acquitted, with the court emphasizing that where the prosecution's case is shrouded in mystery and evidence is unreliable, the benefit of the doubt must be extended to the accused.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure of the prosecution to produce a material witness present at the scene of the crime warrant an adverse inference?
  • Can a conviction be sustained when the ocular account provided by eyewitnesses is inconsistent with medical evidence?
  • Is a conviction sustainable when the prosecution's case is based on testimony that is riddled with material contradictions and improvements?
  Read full judgment →
• Khalid Mahmood vs N.W.F.P. through Chief Secretary, Peshawar and 42011 PLD Peshawar 120 · Peshawar High Court · 2010-11-25
  delegated legislationretrospective operationofficial gazette publicationforest dutysubordinate legislationconstitutional jurisdictionrefund of duty
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner filed a constitutional petition before the Peshawar High Court challenging a notification dated 16-02-2005 issued under Section 56 of the North-West Frontier Province Forest Ordinance, 2002, which enhanced the forest duty on timber imported from Afghanistan via Bin Shahi from Rs.40 per cubic foot to Rs.90 per cubic foot with retrospective effect from 10-01-2004. The core legal questions before the High Court were whether delegated or subordinate legislation could be given retrospective operation to impose financial burdens in the absence of explicit authorization in the parent statute, and from what date a statutory notification takes legal effect. The High Court held that delegated legislation cannot operate retrospectively to impair vested rights or impose new liabilities unless the parent statute expressly grants such power to the delegatee. Relying on provisions of the West Pakistan General Clauses Act, 1956, the Court ruled that the impugned notification gained legal sanction only upon its publication in the Official Gazette on 05-05-2005. Consequently, the Court declared the retrospective recovery of excess duty for the period between 10-01-2004 and 05-05-2005 illegal and ordered its immediate refund along with the retained security deposit.

  Questions settled

  • Can delegated or subordinate legislation operate retrospectively to impose financial burdens without express authority in the parent statute?
  • From what date does a statutory notification levying or enhancing a duty take legal effect?
  • Can an amount collected by a government department without legal sanction be ordered to be refunded in constitutional jurisdiction?
  Read full judgment →
• Khalid Mahmood vs N.W.F.P. through Chief Secretary and 4 others2011 PLJ Peshawar 115 · Peshawar High Court · 2010-11-25Read full judgment →
• Khalid Khan vs The State and another2011 MLD 1902 · Peshawar High Court · 2011-06-03
  post-arrest bailmurderfurther inquiryabscondencenomination in FIRcriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a criminal petition filed by Khalid Khan seeking post-arrest bail in a murder case registered under Sections 302 and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 vide F.I.R. No. 361 dated 4-7-2009 at Police Station Tank. The core legal question is whether the petitioner is entitled to bail on the grounds of further inquiry where the complainant is not an eye-witness, multiple accused are charged for fewer injuries, and the weapon matching is absent, notwithstanding the petitioner's alleged abscondence. The Peshawar High Court held that the case calls for further inquiry into the guilt of the accused, as mere nomination in the F.I.R. without an eye-witness account, undetermined fatal attribution among multiple accused, and inconclusive recoveries do not establish a definitive nexus, and abscondence alone does not disentitle an accused to bail if the case is otherwise merit-worthy. The court accepted the petition and admitted the petitioner to post-arrest bail subject to surety bonds.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an accused can be refused post-arrest bail solely on the ground of abscondence when the case is otherwise fit for bail on merits?
  • Does the mere nomination of an accused in the F.I.R. by a non-eye-witness establish a sufficient nexus with the crime for the purpose of withholding bail?
  • Whether a case falls within the scope of further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code when multiple accused are charged for fewer injuries and the fatal blow is undetermined?
  Read full judgment →
• Khalid Khan Alias Ladhi And Another vs The State And Anothers2011 YLR 2785 · Peshawar High Court · 2011-02-07
  post-arrest bailmurderrule of consistencycross-caseplea of alibiabscondencetentative assessment
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal petition arises from a bail application filed by Khalid Khan and Khadim Khan seeking post-arrest bail in a murder and rioting case registered under sections 302, 324, 427, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Havaid, District Bannu. The core legal questions involved whether the petitioners were entitled to bail on the grounds of a cross-case, rule of consistency with a co-accused who was granted pre-arrest bail, and abscondence. The Peshawar High Court held that the petitioners' roles were distinguishable from the co-accused who had a valid plea of alibi, that the existence of a cross-case does not automatically entitle an accused to bail without tentative assessment, and that bail should be refused where the challan has been submitted and trial is imminent. The petition was consequently dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Does the mere existence of a cross-case entitle an accused person to bail as a matter of right?
  • Whether the rule of consistency applies when the role and circumstances of the co-accused granted bail are distinguishable?
  • Can bail be refused when the challan has been submitted and the trial is about to commence?
  Read full judgment →
• Khadim and 6 others vs Sheran and 33 others2011 PLJ Peshawar 11 · Peshawar High Court · 2010-05-14Read full judgment →
• Kala vs Mst. Kamo Begum2011 CLC 1314 · Peshawar High Court · 2011-02-28Read full judgment →
• Juma Khan And Others vs Abdul Rasheed And Others2011 YLR 161 · Peshawar High Court · 2010-09-06Read full judgment →
• Javed And 2 Others vs The State And Another2011 YLR 2736 · Peshawar High Court · 2011-01-10
  post-arrest bailattempted murderprohibitory clauseocular evidenceinjured witnessfurther inquiry
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by three accused persons charged under Section 324/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for attempted murder. The core legal question was whether the accused were entitled to bail despite being directly charged with effective firing that caused injuries to two persons, and whether the lack of injuries to vital body parts brought the case within the scope of further inquiry under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Peshawar High Court dismissed the bail application, holding that the accused were directly charged in a promptly lodged FIR, supported by ocular evidence from injured witnesses, and that the existence of a motive further connected them to the crime. The Court affirmed the principle that the mere fact that injuries were not sustained on vital parts of the body does not automatically exclude an offense from the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, nor does it necessarily entitle an accused to bail as a matter of right.

  Questions settled

  • Does the fact that firearm injuries were sustained on non-vital parts of the body bring a case under Section 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 outside the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is an accused entitled to bail as a matter of right when they are directly charged in a promptly lodged FIR with an effective role in causing injuries?
  • Does the absence of recovered empties from the crime scene automatically render a case one of further inquiry for the purpose of bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Javed and 2 others vs State and anotherPLJ 2011 Cr.C. (Peshawar) 414 · Peshawar High Court · 2011-01-10
  post-arrest bailattempt to murderfirearm injuriesprohibitory clauseinjured witnessfurther inquiry
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a criminal petition filed by three accused persons seeking post-arrest bail in a case registered under Section 324/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question before the Peshawar High Court was whether the petitioners were entitled to pre-trial bail given that they were directly charged with effective firing resulting in injuries to two persons, despite arguments regarding contradictions in the site plan and injuries on non-vital parts of the body. The court held that the petitioners were directly charged in a promptly lodged FIR, supported by ocular testimony of injured witnesses and a stated motive, connecting them reasonably to the crime. The court ruled that injuries on non-vital parts do not automatically bring a case out of the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Consequently, the bail petition was rejected.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an accused is entitled to bail merely because firearm injuries were sustained on non-vital parts of the body?
  • Does the absence of empties and bulb recovery from the spot make a case one of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does direct charge with effective firing in a promptly lodged FIR connect the accused reasonably with the commission of the offence?
  Read full judgment →
• Javed Akhtar and 6 others vs Muhammad Israr2011 CLC 1339 · Peshawar High Court · 2011-04-11Read full judgment →
• Jamshed Ali vs The State and another2011 MLD 157 · Peshawar High Court · 2010-10-22
  post-arrest bailabscondenceprohibitory clausetentative assessmentcriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, Jamshed Ali, sought post-arrest bail after his bail was cancelled by the Sessions Judge Karak. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to the concession of post-arrest bail given his nomination in a statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, his prolonged abscondence, and his prima facie connection to an offence falling within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Peshawar High Court held that at the bail stage, only a tentative assessment of available facts is required, and since the petitioner was charged by the complainant and remained a fugitive from law for several months without explanation, he was prima facie connected with the offence and disentitled to bail. The petition was accordingly dismissed, laying down the principle that abscondence and tentative connection to an offence within the prohibitory clause disentitle an accused to post-arrest bail.

  Questions settled

  • Is an accused entitled to post-arrest bail when prima facie connected to an offence covered by the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does prolonged abscondence without explanation disentitle an accused to the concession of bail?
  • Can a deep appraisal of evidence be undertaken at the bail stage?
  Read full judgment →
• Jamil And 5 Others vs Sheerin And 3 Others2011 YLR 1083 · Peshawar High Court · 2010-11-01Read full judgment →
• Izzat Khan vs Pakistan Railways and others2011 PLC 171 · Peshawar High Court · 2010-12-13
  termination of servicebogus educational certificatesvoid ab initioindustrial relationsstanding ordersfraudulent appointmentlabour court
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arises from the dismissal of a grievance petition by the Labour Court, which had upheld the termination of the appellant, an employee of Pakistan Railways. The appellant challenged his discharge from service, arguing that the employer failed to comply with the procedural requirements of Standing Order 15(4) of the Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968. The core legal question was whether an employee appointed subject to the verification of educational credentials, who is subsequently found to have submitted bogus documents, is entitled to the procedural protections of a formal inquiry under Standing Order 15(4) prior to termination. The Court held that the appellant’s appointment, having been procured through fraud and bogus documents, was void ab initio. Consequently, the employer was not required to follow the disciplinary procedures prescribed under Standing Order 15(4). The Court affirmed the dismissal of the grievance petition, establishing the principle that an employee whose initial appointment is based on fraudulent documentation is not entitled to the procedural safeguards typically afforded to regular employees, as such an appointment is void from its inception.

  Questions settled

  • Is an employee whose appointment is based on fraudulent educational certificates entitled to the procedural protections of Standing Order 15(4) of the Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968?
  • Does an appointment obtained through the submission of bogus documents constitute a void ab initio contract of service?
  • Is a formal disciplinary inquiry required before terminating an employee whose initial appointment was conditional upon the verification of credentials that were later found to be forged?
  Read full judgment →
• Israr vs The State2011 P Cr. L J 1203 · Peshawar High Court · 2011-02-09
  narcoticscharas recoveryGovernment Analystchemical examiner reportremandcriminal appealpost-arrest bail
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant under Section 9 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, following a remand for re-examining the Chemical Examiner. The core legal question was whether the report of an analyst who does not qualify as a Government Analyst under Section 35 of the Act and the relevant rules can form the basis of a valid conviction. The Peshawar High Court held that an analysis report from a person not duly notified as a Government Analyst lacks evidentiary worth and cannot sustain a conviction. Consequently, the court set aside the conviction and sentence, remanded the case for fresh trial with directions to obtain a fresh analysis from a qualified Government Analyst, and admitted the appellant to post-arrest bail considering the prolonged incarceration already undergone.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a report by an analyst who is not a notified Government Analyst under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act can form the basis for a conviction?
  • Can an appellate court remand a criminal case for fresh analysis of narcotic samples by a qualified Government Analyst?
  • Whether an accused who has undergone prolonged incarceration during trial is entitled to grant of bail upon the remand of the case?
  Read full judgment →
• Israr Ali and others vs Akhtar Ali and others2011 MLD 29 · Peshawar High Court · 2010-02-19Read full judgment →
• Irshad Begum and another vs Hidayatullah and others2011 CLC 227 · Peshawar High Court · 2010-08-30Read full judgment →
• Inayatullah vs The State2011 P Cr. L J 1114 · Peshawar High Court · 2011-01-13
  unsound mindschizophreniainsanity pleacriminal responsibilitymental illnessmedical boardremandtrial procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and death sentence of the appellant, Inayatullah, for multiple murders under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and Section 7(a) of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997. The core legal question concerns whether the trial court erred in proceeding with the trial and convicting the appellant without adequately determining his mental capacity and examining his plea of legal insanity, given that successive medical reports established he was a chronic patient of schizophrenia. The Peshawar High Court held that the trial court failed to follow the mandatory statutory procedures prescribed under Chapter XXXIV of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 regarding persons of unsound mind and omitted to properly examine medical experts and evaluate the applicability of Section 84 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 concerning criminal responsibility. Consequently, the appellate court set aside the conviction and sentence, and remanded the matter back to the trial court with directions to conduct a proper inquiry into the appellant's mental status both at the time of the offence and during the trial.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a trial court is bound to conduct a preliminary inquiry regarding the mental capacity of an accused when successive medical reports indicate he suffers from schizophrenia?
  • How does the existence of schizophrenia affect an accused's criminal responsibility and capacity to make a defense under Pakistani law?
  • Is it mandatory for the trial court to examine medical board members as witnesses when conflicting or conditional medical opinions exist regarding an accused's sanity?
  • What procedure must a trial court follow under Chapter XXXIV of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when dealing with an accused person of unsound mind?
  Read full judgment →
• Inayatullah vs StatePLJ 2011 Cr.C. (Peshawar) 700 · Peshawar High Court · 2011-01-13
  schizophreniaunsoundness of mindmental capacity to stand trialcriminal responsibilitymedical board reportremandinsanity pleadeath sentence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from a judgment of the Anti-Terrorism Court convicting the appellant, Inayatullah, of multiple murders under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code and Section 7(a) of the Anti-Terrorism Act, sentencing him to death. The core legal question concerns whether the trial court failed to properly ascertain the mental health and capacity of the accused—who was diagnosed with chronic schizophrenia—to make a defense under Chapter XXXIV of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, and whether his criminal responsibility was affected under Section 84 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The Peshawar High Court held that the trial court committed a material irregularity by failing to properly examine the medical board members and determine the accused's mental status both at the time of the offense and during the trial proceedings, despite successive medical reports indicating chronic mental illness. The appellate court set aside the conviction and sentence, remanding the matter back to the trial court with directions to summon the medical board members for expert opinions on the appellant's mental capacity and proceed in accordance with law.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a trial court is bound to hold a preliminary inquiry and examine medical board members when an accused raises a plea of unsoundness of mind?
  • Does failure to determine an accused person's mental capacity under Chapter XXXIV of the Code of Criminal Procedure vitiate the trial?
  • How does chronic schizophrenia affect criminal responsibility and the capacity to make a defense in a capital case?
  • What procedure must a trial court follow upon receiving conflicting or qualified medical reports regarding an accused's sanity?
  Read full judgment →
• Inayatullah Khan vs Chairman, National Highway Authority, Islamabad and 11 others2011 YLR 1717 · Peshawar High Court · 2011-03-25Read full judgment →
• Inayat Ullah Khan and 5 others vs Abdul Karim and 4 others2011 PLJ Peshawar 179 · Peshawar High Court · 2010-06-07Read full judgment →
• Inayat Khan vs Zahid And 2 Others2011 YLR 761 · Peshawar High Court · 2010-11-26
  bail cancellationfurther inquirymisuse of bailstatement under section 164Offence of Zina
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought the cancellation of bail granted to the accused-respondents by the lower court in a case registered under the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979. The core legal question was whether sufficient grounds existed to recall the bail already granted to the respondents. The Peshawar High Court held that considerations for the grant of bail and the cancellation of bail are entirely different, and once bail is granted, strong grounds such as misuse of concession, perversity in the order, or tampering with evidence are required to recall it. The Court noted that the trial court rightly released the respondents on the ground of further inquiry since the victim did not name them in her statement under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, and no other incriminating material was collected. The key principle laid down is that liberty granted by way of bail cannot be revoked on the mere whims of the petitioner in the absence of extraordinary circumstances or misuse of liberty.

  Questions settled

  • Whether bail once granted can be cancelled without strong and exceptional grounds?
  • Does the applicability of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 persist in areas where the Protection of Women (Criminal Laws Amendment) Act, 2006 has not been extended?
  • What are the distinct considerations required for the cancellation of bail as opposed to the initial grant of bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Imran Shah vs Mrs. Dil Part Jana And Another2011 YLR 311 · Peshawar High Court · 2010-06-08
  criminal appealsolitary witnessrule of consistencymedical evidenceabscondencereasonable doubtinterested witnessforensic evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 302(b) and Section 449 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, imposed by the trial court for murder and house trespass. The core legal questions concerned the reliability of a solitary, interested eyewitness, the impact of contradictions between ocular and medical evidence, and the application of the rule of consistency following the acquittal of a co-accused. The Peshawar High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The court found the testimony of the complainant unreliable due to material contradictions regarding the deceased's stomach contents and the number of weapons used, as established by forensic evidence. Furthermore, the court applied the rule of consistency, noting that a co-accused with an identical role had been acquitted on the same evidence. Consequently, the court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant. The judgment reiterates that abscondence alone cannot sustain a conviction and that a single reasonable doubt is sufficient to discard the prosecution's case.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction be sustained based on the testimony of a solitary, interested witness when it contradicts medical and forensic evidence?
  • Does the rule of consistency require the acquittal of an accused when a co-accused with an identical role has already been acquitted on the same evidence?
  • Is abscondence sufficient to support a conviction in the absence of other reliable evidence connecting the accused to the crime?
  • What is the legal effect of a material contradiction between the ocular account and the medical report regarding the victim's stomach contents?
  Read full judgment →
• Ikram-Ullah Khan And Another vs The State And 5 Otherss2011 YLR 437 · Peshawar High Court · 2010-10-11
  quashment petitionstay of criminal proceedingscivil litigationfraudulent transferprivate complaintconflicting decisionstitle dispute
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal quashment petition challenges the concurrent orders of the lower courts staying a private criminal complaint pending the final decision of a civil suit between the same parties. The core legal question was whether criminal proceedings should be stayed when civil litigation regarding the same subject-matter and title is pending. The Peshawar High Court dismissed the petition, holding that while criminal proceedings should not normally be postponed pending civil litigation, a criminal court should stay its hands until the disposal of civil litigation if the criminal liability is intimately connected with the civil dispute and there is a danger of conflicting decisions regarding the title to the property. The key principle laid down is that where the determination of criminal liability depends directly on the outcome of a disputed title in a pending civil suit, staying the criminal complaint to prevent conflicting decisions and grave injustice is legally sound and free from illegality.

  Questions settled

  • Whether criminal proceedings should be stayed pending the disposal of civil litigation involving the same subject-matter?
  • Can a criminal court stay a private complaint when the criminal liability is dependent upon the result of pending civil litigation?
  • Is it proper for a criminal court to give a finding on property title when the title itself is in dispute before a civil court?
  Read full judgment →
• Ikram Ullah vs Zakir Ullah and 5 others2011 PLJ Peshawar 34 · Peshawar High Court · 2010-05-03Read full judgment →
• Ihsanullah and others vs Khwaja Muhammad and others2011 CLC 989 · Peshawar High Court · 2011-02-21
  revision petitiondeclaration of ownershipthirty year old documentspresumption of truthburden of proofrevenue recordlimitation periodrevisional jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This revision petition was filed against the concurrent decisions of the Civil Judge and Additional District Judge, Swabi, which dismissed the petitioners' suit for declaration and possession regarding 10 Kanal of disputed land. The petitioners claimed ownership, arguing that the respondents' title rested on unregistered deeds that were unproven under Article 79 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984. The respondents asserted possession based on 30-year-old deeds, resolutions, and revenue entries. The Peshawar High Court observed that continuous possession by the respondents was established and confirmed by the petitioners' attorney, shifting the onus of proof onto the petitioners under Article 126 of the Order. The Court held that documents over thirty years old produced from proper custody carry a presumption of truth under Article 100 of the Order, overriding the general requirement of Article 79 unless rebutted. Furthermore, the suit was barred by limitation under Article 142 of the Limitation Act, 1908, as the underlying transfers were left unchallenged for decades. Finding no jurisdictional defect or material irregularity under Section 115 C.P.C., the High Court upheld the dismissal.

  Questions settled

  • On whom does the burden of proof lie when a person in possession of property is claimed not to be the true owner?
  • Does Article 100 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 dispense with the proof requirements of Article 79 for documents that are thirty years old?
  • What is the period of limitation under Article 142 of the Limitation Act, 1908 for challenging long-standing revenue entries and mutations?
  • Can a High Court interfere under Section 115 C.P.C. with concurrent findings of fact where no jurisdictional error or material irregularity exists?
  Read full judgment →
• Ihsanullah and others vs Khawaja Muhammad and others2011 PLJ Peshawar 311 · Peshawar High Court · 2011-02-21Read full judgment →
• Hussain Shah and others vs Akbar Shah and others2011 YLR 1479 · Peshawar High Court · 2011-01-17Read full judgment →
• Hukam Zad Khan vs The State And Another2011 YLR 779 · Peshawar High Court · 2011-01-03
  post-arrest baildouble murderblood feuddelay in F.I.R.site plan discrepanciestentative assessment
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves an application for post-arrest bail filed by the accused, Hukum Zad Khan, charged under sections 302 and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for a double murder arising from a previous blood feud. The core legal questions concern whether unexplained delay in lodging the F.I.R., discrepancies between the F.I.R. and the site plan, and a favorable police diary opinion justify granting bail to a directly charged accused. The Peshawar High Court held that the delay was sufficiently explained by transportation difficulties, discrepancies and evidentiary merits must be resolved at trial rather than the bail stage, and a police opinion without cogent reasons cannot establish innocence. Consequently, the court dismissed the bail application, laying down the principle that tentative assessment of available material connecting the accused to a heinous crime, supported by direct ocular testimony and recovered weaponry, disentitles the accused to the discretionary relief of post-arrest bail.

  Questions settled

  • Does a delay in lodging the first information report due to transport difficulties justify granting post-arrest bail?
  • Can discrepancies between the contents of the F.I.R. and the site plan be deeply evaluated at the bail stage?
  • Does a police opinion favoring the innocence of an accused bind the court during bail adjudication?
  • Is an accused directly charged with a capital offense by name with supporting eye-witness accounts entitled to discretionary bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Hasnain Faraz vs Chairman through B.I.S.E. and others2011 CLC 265 · Peshawar High Court · 2010-10-18
  correction of date of birthbirth certificateadmissibility of documentsobjection to evidencerevisional jurisdictionconcurrent findingsschool record
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition challenges the concurrent judgments of the lower courts dismissing the petitioner's suit for a declaration to correct his date of birth in the school and board records. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to correction of his date of birth based on a duly exhibited birth certificate, notwithstanding concurrent findings of the lower courts and alleged discrepancies in the plaint. The Peshawar High Court held that the lower courts misread the evidence and perversely discarded an officially issued birth certificate that was admitted into evidence without objection. The Court ruled that where a document is exhibited without objection, it carries a presumption of correctness, and that a young student seeking correction without any mala fide intent or ulterior motive (such as election gains) is entitled to relief. The revision petition was accepted, the concurrent judgments were set aside, and the suit was decreed.

  Questions settled

  • Can a document admitted into evidence without objection at the trial stage be subsequently discarded at an appellate or revisional stage?
  • Whether concurrent findings of fact by lower courts can be interfered with in revisional jurisdiction if found to be perverse or the result of non-reading of evidence?
  • Is a civil suit for the correction of date of birth maintainable before a civil court under Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Does a birth certificate carry a presumption of correctness when properly exhibited in evidence without legal objection?
  Read full judgment →
• Hashim Khan and another vs Muhammad Jameel and others2011 YLR 1300 · Peshawar High Court · 2010-12-03Read full judgment →
• Haroon & another vs Jahanzeb and othersPLJ 2011 Cr.C. (Peshawar) 90 · Peshawar High Court · 2010-04-02Read full judgment →
• Hamid Yousaf vs The State2011 P Cr. L J 172 · Peshawar High Court · 2010-10-29
  counterfeit currencypossession of forged notesmens reacriminal intentappreciation of evidenceacquittalPakistan Penal Code
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant under section 489-C of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for possessing counterfeit currency notes. The core legal question addressed is whether mere physical possession of forged currency notes is sufficient to sustain a conviction under section 489-C without proving the accused's knowledge that the notes were counterfeit and the intention to use them as genuine. The Peshawar High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the essential ingredients of knowledge and intent, rendering mere possession insufficient for conviction. The court laid down the principle that to secure a conviction under section 489-C, the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt not only the possession of forged notes but also that the accused had knowledge or reason to believe they were counterfeit and intended to use them as genuine. Consequently, the appeal was accepted, and the appellant was acquitted.

  Questions settled

  • Is mere possession of counterfeit currency notes sufficient to sustain a conviction under section 489-C of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • What are the essential ingredients that the prosecution must prove to establish an offense under section 489-C of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Does the absence of proof regarding the accused's knowledge of forged notes vitiate a conviction for possessing counterfeit currency?
  Read full judgment →
• Haji Umar Zaman vs Kabir Khan2011 PLJ Peshawar 134 · Peshawar High Court · 2009-10-06Read full judgment →
• Haji Sikandar Wali vs Shahzada Mohiyuddin and another2011 CLC 1078 · Peshawar High Court · 2010-09-20Read full judgment →
• Haji Sikandar Wali , vs Shahzada Mohiyuddin and anothers2011 CLD 863 · Peshawar High Court · 2010-09-20Read full judgment →
• Haji Sharaf Hussain and 5 others vs Haji Tor Gul and 7 others2011 CLC 543 · Peshawar High Court · 2010-12-15
  revision petitionlocal commission reportobjections to commissionsurface rentmining concessionsprinciples of natural justiceremand of case
  Summary & questions settled

  This revision petition challenges the concurrent judgments and decrees of the lower courts dismissing the petitioners' suit regarding entitlement to surface rent from a cement factory's mining activities. The core legal question was whether the trial court erred in failing to formally decide the petitioners' objections to the fourth local commission report prior to concluding the trial, thereby violating principles of natural justice and procedural law. The Peshawar High Court held that while failure to separately decide commission objections before final judgment is not fatal if the final judgment addresses them, the courts below failed to effectively address all the objections raised by the petitioners, thus prejudicing their case. The High Court set aside the impugned judgments and remanded the matter back to the trial court to decide the case afresh after addressing the petitioners' specific objections.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the failure of a trial court to separately decide objections to a local commission report before judgment vitiates the proceedings?
  • Can a court's final judgment cure the omission of not passing a prior separate order on local commission objections?
  • Does the non-consideration of a party's objections to a commission report prejudice their case warranting interference in revision?
  Read full judgment →
• Haji Rustum Khan vs Gul Azam through Legal Heirs and others2011 MLD 912 · Peshawar High Court · 2010-10-11Read full judgment →
• Haji Rustam Khan vs Gul Azam through L.Rs. and others2011 PLJ Peshawar 234 · Peshawar High Court · 2010-10-11Read full judgment →
• Haji Muhammad Zaman . vs The State and 2 others2011 MLD 93 · Peshawar High Court · 2010-10-12
  pre-arrest bailbail cancellationmala fidecriminal proceduremurderdirect charge
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a criminal petition filed under Section 497(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, seeking the cancellation of pre-arrest bail granted to the respondents by the Sessions Judge. The accused were charged with murder under Sections 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the respondents were entitled to pre-arrest bail despite being directly charged in a prompt FIR for a broad-daylight murder where no mala fide on the part of the complainant was established. The Court held that the principles governing pre-arrest bail differ significantly from post-arrest bail; specifically, pre-arrest bail requires proof of mala fide or false involvement, which was absent here. Finding that the accused were prima facie connected to the offence, the Court recalled the pre-arrest bail, noting that arguments regarding evidentiary merits like recovery and medical reports are relevant only for post-arrest bail. The key principle laid down is that pre-arrest bail cannot be confirmed absent a demonstrated plea of mala fide or false implication by the prosecution.

  Questions settled

  • Is the absence of a plea of mala fide or false involvement a sufficient ground to deny pre-arrest bail?
  • Are arguments regarding evidentiary merits like recovery and medical reports applicable to pre-arrest bail proceedings?
  • Does the principle for granting pre-arrest bail differ from the principle for granting post-arrest bail?
  Read full judgment →