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. 46,805 judgments in total from the Sindh High Court.

• Kirthar Pakistan BV through Authorize Attorney vs Federation Of Pakistan2020 PTD 1927 · Sindh High Court · 2020-03-19Read full judgment →
• Khusro Mirza vs The State2020 YLR 1239 · Sindh High Court · 2019-07-24
  pre-arrest baildishonoured chequeauction proceedingsfuture obligationcriminal breachSindh High Court
  Summary & questions settled

  The applicant sought pre-arrest bail in a case registered under section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, arising from the dishonouring of a cheque given as 25% of the hammer-down auction amount for a property purchased through court auction. The core legal question was whether pre-arrest bail should be granted when a cheque issued during judicial auction proceedings bounces and dishonesty is prima facie apparent from the conduct of the bidder. The court held that no case for pre-arrest bail was made out, finding that the cheque was issued for a future obligation in auction proceedings, was not accepted as mere surety, and its dishonour coupled with failure to inform the court demonstrated dishonesty, precluding extraordinary relief. The court laid down that participation in judicial auction proceedings followed by the issuance of a dishonoured cheque without prior withdrawal of the bid or intimation to the executing court does not warrant pre-arrest bail, and that such observations are tentative in nature.

  Questions settled

  • Whether pre-arrest bail can be granted when a cheque given as 25% of a judicial auction amount is dishonoured?
  • Does a cheque given by a successful bidder in court auction proceedings constitute a surety or an obligation in respect of a transaction?
  • Whether failure to contact the executing court regarding a bounced auction cheque attracts dishonesty sufficient to deny pre-arrest relief?
  Read full judgment →
• Khushi Muhammad vs The State through Deputy Prosecutor-General, Sukkur and 8 others2020 MLD 1616 · Sindh High Court · 2019-11-15
  criminal revisiondirect complaintcivil litigationabuse of processforgerydismissal of complaintrevenue record
  Summary & questions settled

  This Criminal Revision Application challenges an order passed by the Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, dismissing the applicant's direct complaint under Section 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The core legal question was whether the trial court erred in dismissing the complaint where the underlying dispute between the parties was already the subject of extensive civil litigation. The High Court upheld the dismissal, finding that the parties had engaged in protracted civil litigation regarding the same property, resulting in a consolidated judgment where the applicant's claims were dismissed and the respondents' claims were decreed. The Court held that the applicant was attempting to convert a purely civil dispute into criminal litigation to harass and pressure the respondents. The Court emphasized that where a competent civil court has already adjudicated the rights of the parties and declared the documents relied upon by the complainant to be null and void, a criminal complaint based on the same facts is an abuse of process. Consequently, the revision application was dismissed as the impugned order required no interference.

  Questions settled

  • Can a direct criminal complaint be maintained when the underlying dispute is purely civil in nature and already adjudicated by a civil court?
  • Is it permissible to initiate criminal proceedings to harass the opposite party after losing a civil suit regarding the same subject matter?
  • Does a trial court have the discretion to dismiss a direct complaint under Section 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 if the allegations are essentially civil?
  Read full judgment →
• Khurram Abdul Jabbar through Legal Representative vs Sikandar Haji2020 YLR 1263 · Sindh High Court · 2019-09-05Read full judgment →
• Khuda Bux Chandio vs Altaf Baloch and others2021 YLR 281, 2020 PLJ Karachi 93 · Sindh High Court · 2019-11-07Read full judgment →
• Khizar Hayat vs Province of Sindh and 02 others2020 SHC 1082 · Sindh High Court · 2020-11-25
  show cause noticesuspension ordermisconductcivil servantterms and conditions of serviceconstitutional petitionjurisdictionservice tribunal
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed by an Assistant Sub-Inspector of Sindh Police challenging a show-cause notice and a subsequent suspension order issued against him on allegations of misconduct involving the occupation of private property and threats. The core legal questions involved the maintainability of a constitutional petition against a show-cause notice and suspension order in service matters, and whether such matters are barred by Article 212(2) of the Constitution of Pakistan. The Sindh High Court held that disciplinary proceedings fall within the terms and conditions of service of a civil servant, thereby barring the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 212(2) of the Constitution in favor of the Service Tribunal. The Court further ruled that a show-cause notice and a temporary suspension order do not constitute punishments, and a writ petition is not maintainable against them unless they are shown to be patently illegal, malafide, or without jurisdiction. The petition was consequently dismissed in limine.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a constitutional petition is maintainable against the issuance of a show-cause notice and an order of suspension in service matters?
  • Does the bar under Article 212(2) of the Constitution of Pakistan apply to disciplinary proceedings and matters relating to the terms and conditions of service of civil servants?
  • Whether a show-cause notice or an order of suspension constitutes a punishment under service jurisprudence against which a writ petition lies?
  • Can the High Court interfere with departmental disciplinary proceedings at the stage of a show-cause notice or suspension without a showing of patent illegality or lack of jurisdiction?
  Read full judgment →
• Khizar Hayat Khan vs Province of Sindh & Others2020 SHC 258 · Sindh High Court · 2020-03-19Read full judgment →
• Khawand Bux vs Allah Dino & Others2020 SHC 126 · Sindh High Court · 2020-02-04Read full judgment →
• Khawaja Ahad Rahman and others vs Province of Sindh2020 SHC 350 · Sindh High Court · 2019-12-09Read full judgment →
• Khamiso alias Jogi and another vs The State2020 MLD 1614 · Sindh High Court · 2019-05-28
  suspension of sentencepost-conviction bailappellate discretiondelay in appealSection 426 Cr.P.C.life imprisonment
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns an application under Section 426 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, seeking the suspension of sentences of life imprisonment awarded to the appellants for murder. The core legal question was whether the High Court should exercise its discretion to suspend the sentence and grant bail pending the final adjudication of the appeal, given the significant delay in the hearing of the appeal and the existence of potential defects in the trial court's judgment. The Court held that the discretion to grant bail under Section 426 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 is not fettered by the nature of the conviction or the length of the sentence. Finding that the appeal was unlikely to be heard in the near future and noting apparent defects in the impugned judgment that required deeper re-evaluation, the Court suspended the sentences and granted bail to the appellants. The key principle laid down is that the High Court possesses broad discretionary power to suspend sentences pending appeal, provided such discretion is exercised judicially, without requiring a deep appraisal of evidence at the bail stage.

  Questions settled

  • Does Section 426 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 impose limitations on the High Court's power to grant bail to an accused convicted of murder?
  • Is the discretion of the Appellate Court to grant bail under Section 426 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 restricted by the nature of the conviction or sentence?
  • Should a court conduct a deep appraisal of evidence when considering an application for suspension of sentence under Section 426 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Khalil-Ur-Rehman vs Pepco Wapda & others2020 SHC 506 · Sindh High Court · 2020-08-06Read full judgment →
• Khalid Hussain and others vs Province of Sindh and 03 others2020 SHC 842 · Sindh High Court · 2020-10-29Read full judgment →
• Khair Muhammad Brohi & others vs District Judge Matiari & others2020 SHC 540 · Sindh High Court · 2020-08-07Read full judgment →
• Khadim Hussain vs The State2020 SHC 128, 2022 MLD 95 · Sindh High Court · 2020-02-06Read full judgment →
• Kazim Raza Abidi Advocate and 4 others vs Xviiith Judicial Magistrate and another2020 PLD Sindh 748 · Sindh High Court · 2019-11-15
  criminal revisionconcurrent jurisdictionrevisional powersfair trialinterlocutory ordercross-examinationjudicial hierarchy
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision application challenged an order passed by a Judicial Magistrate during the cross-examination of a prosecution witness. The applicants, defense counsel, sought to exhibit a photocopy of a statement recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, which the trial court refused to exhibit, leading to a confrontation and subsequent order by the Magistrate. The core legal question was whether the High Court should exercise its revisional jurisdiction directly against an interlocutory order of a Judicial Magistrate, bypassing the Sessions Court. The High Court held that while it possesses concurrent revisional jurisdiction with the Sessions Court under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, a party cannot bypass the lower appellate forum without sufficient justification. The court emphasized that bypassing the Sessions Court deprives the aggrieved party of a forum of appeal or revision and violates the principles of a fair trial. Consequently, the court dismissed the application as not maintainable, directing the applicants to approach the Sessions Judge for redressal of their grievances.

  Questions settled

  • Is a criminal revision application directly maintainable in the High Court against an order of a Judicial Magistrate?
  • Does the concurrent jurisdiction of the High Court and Sessions Court under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 allow a party to bypass the Sessions Court?
  • Does bypassing the Sessions Court in favor of the High Court for a revision application violate the principle of fair trial?
  Read full judgment →
• Kathiawar Cooperative Housing Society Limited vs Makkah Masjid (Regd)2020 SHC 1040 · Sindh High Court · 2020-11-20Read full judgment →
• Kashifullah vs The State2020 MLD 675 · Sindh High Court · 2019-11-27
  post-arrest bailnarcoticsfurther inquiryrecovery from public transportpossession of contrabandcriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  The applicant sought post-arrest bail in a narcotics case involving the recovery of two kilograms of charas from a bus side box. The core legal question was whether the applicant's connection to the recovered narcotics was sufficiently established to deny bail, or if the circumstances warranted further inquiry under the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Court observed that the narcotics were recovered from an external side box of the bus, not from the applicant's physical possession, and that the bus itself was not taken into custody. Furthermore, the prosecution failed to cite the driver or conductor as witnesses, and there was ambiguity regarding control over the side box. Relying on the principle that recovery from a non-exclusive area without clear evidence of possession or control constitutes a case of further inquiry, the Court held that the applicant's guilt required deeper investigation. Consequently, the Court granted post-arrest bail, determining that the case fell within the scope of further inquiry under the relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

  Questions settled

  • Does the recovery of narcotics from an external side box of a bus, rather than the physical possession of an accused, constitute a case for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is an accused entitled to bail when the prosecution fails to establish exclusive control over the area from which contraband was recovered?
  • Does the failure to cite independent witnesses or the vehicle driver in a narcotics recovery case create grounds for further inquiry?
  Read full judgment →
• Kashif Feroz vs Federation of Pakistan & another2021 PTD 867, 2020 SHC 1300 · Sindh High Court · 2020-12-10Read full judgment →
• Kashif Anwar and others vs The State2020 PTD 474 · Sindh High Court · 2019-08-19
  pre-arrest bailanticipatory bailsales tax fraudfake invoicestax evasionfurther inquirydocumentary evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns applications for pre-arrest bail in a case involving alleged tax fraud, specifically the generation of fake sales tax invoices and illegal input tax adjustments, causing significant loss to the national exchequer. The core legal question was whether the applicants were entitled to pre-arrest bail given the nature of the allegations and the status of the investigation. The Court held that the applicants were entitled to confirmation of their pre-arrest bail. The ratio of the decision rests on the fact that the prosecution's case required further inquiry, as the investigation failed to clearly establish the specific role of the applicants, the actual extent of their alleged benefit, or the technical origin of the fraudulent invoices. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that since the evidence is largely documentary and the matter is still subject to formal tax adjudication, the arrest of the applicants would serve no beneficial purpose for the prosecution. The judgment reinforces the principle that pre-arrest bail is appropriate where the prosecution's case is tentative, lacks specific attribution of criminal liability, and where the accused's incarceration is not necessary for the investigation.

  Questions settled

  • Is pre-arrest bail maintainable when the specific role of the accused in a tax fraud case is not clearly deciphered in the charge-sheet?
  • Can pre-arrest bail be granted when the alleged tax liability is still subject to formal adjudication?
  • Is the arrest of an accused necessary when the prosecution's evidence is primarily documentary in nature?
  • Does the trial court have the authority to cancel bail without reference to the High Court if the accused becomes a fugitive?
  Read full judgment →
• Kashif @ Kashoo vs The State2020 SHC 516 · Sindh High Court · 2020-08-07
  bail applicationcriminal proceduredismissed as not pressedpost-arrest bail
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter comes before the Sindh High Court as a post-arrest bail application filed by the applicant Kashif alias Kashoo against the State. The core legal question concerns the determination of entitlement to bail in criminal proceedings. When the matter came up for hearing, the learned counsel for the applicant, acting upon the instructions of the applicant, stated that he did not press the bail application. Consequently, the court dismissed the application as not pressed. No further legal principles or holdings were laid down.

  Questions settled

  • What is the effect when a bail application is not pressed by the applicant?
  • Can a bail application be dismissed when counsel states it is not pressed under instructions?
  Read full judgment →
• Karim Bux son of Pehlwan Bhayo vs The State2020 SHC 1088 · Sindh High Court · 2020-11-26
  murderrelated witnessesdelayed FIRocular and medical evidencecriminal appealweapon recoveryappreciation of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 302(c) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, arising from the murder of his real brother following a minor verbal altercation over employment. The core legal questions involve the credibility and reliability of closely related eye-witnesses, the effect of delay in lodging the First Information Report, and whether inconsistencies existed between the ocular and medical evidence. The Sindh High Court held that the testimony of related witnesses cannot be discarded solely on the ground of relationship if their presence is natural and their statements remain trustworthy and corroborated by medical evidence and recovery. The Court affirmed that delay in lodging the FIR, particularly in cases involving family members and funeral rites, is not fatal when adequately explained. The key principle laid down is that related witnesses are often more reliable in heinous crimes as they are unlikely to substitute an innocent person for the actual culprit, and mere relationship does not render a witness 'interested' in the legal sense unless animosity or ulterior motives are proven.

  Questions settled

  • Can the testimony of eye-witnesses be discarded solely on the ground that they are closely related to the deceased?
  • Does a delay in lodging the First Information Report invariably prove fatal to the prosecution's case?
  • What constitutes an 'interested witness' in criminal jurisprudence under Pakistani law?
  • Is medical evidence deemed contradictory to ocular testimony when witnesses state the victim died on the way to the hospital while the doctor notes instantaneous death?
  Read full judgment →
• Karim Bux Magsi & Another vs The State2020 SHC 466 · Sindh High Court · 2020-08-04
  protective bailpre-arrest bailsurrender before courtimminent arrestcriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns an application for protective bail filed by two applicants, Karim Bux Magsi and Ali Ahmed Magsi, who were implicated in Crime No. 28/2020 registered at Police Station Piaro Lund, District Tando Allahyar, for offenses under Sections 324, 109, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The applicants asserted their innocence and alleged false implication, expressing a desire to surrender before the competent trial court to seek pre-arrest bail. Fearing imminent arrest by the police, they sought protective bail to facilitate their appearance. The Court, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, granted the applicants protective bail for a period of seven days. This relief was conditional upon the applicants furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs. 40,000 each and a personal recognizance bond in the same amount to the satisfaction of the Additional Registrar. The order stipulates that the protective bail shall expire after seven days or upon the applicants' surrender before the concerned court, whichever occurs earlier.

  Questions settled

  • Can a high court grant protective bail to an accused to enable them to surrender before a trial court?
  • Is it necessary to touch upon the merits of the case when granting protective bail?
  • What is the standard duration for protective bail granted by the High Court in this context?
  Read full judgment →
• Karim Bukhsh and another vs The State2020 SHC 636, 2022 PLD Sindh 61 · Sindh High Court · 2020-08-12Read full judgment →
• Karamuddin Panhyar S/o Koral Khan Panhyar vs The State2020 SHC 744 · Sindh High Court
  criminal accountability appealmisuse of authorityreconstruction of land recordsreduction of sentencewhite-collar crimeno financial loss
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellant, an Assistant Commissioner appointed as an Enquiry Officer for the reconstruction of land records, was convicted by the Accountability Court under Section 9(a)(vi) of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, for misusing his authority by making fifteen illegal land entries. On appeal before the Sindh High Court, the appellant did not press the appeal on merits but requested a reduction in sentence. The High Court observed that the prosecution had proved its case beyond reasonable doubt, and the illegal entries were admitted by the appellant. However, noting that the appellant had subsequently canceled the entries himself, no financial loss was caused to the government exchequer, no third party took possession of the land, and considering the appellant's advanced age and status as the sole breadwinner, the Court found him capable of reformation. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the appeal on merits but reduced the sentence of rigorous imprisonment from seven years to five years, while maintaining the fine and disqualifications.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a sentence can be reduced on appeal if the appellant did not cause any actual financial loss to the government and subsequently canceled the illegal entries?
  • Can mitigating factors such as advanced age and being the sole breadwinner of a family justify a reduction in sentence under the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999?
  • Does the subsequent cancellation of illegal land entries by an accused officer absolve them of the offense of misuse of authority under Section 9(a) of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999?
  Read full judgment →
• Karamat Hussain vs The State2020 SHC 262 · Sindh High Court · 2020-03-31
  circumstantial evidenceqatl-i-amdcriminal appealSection 342 Cr.P.C.recovery of stolen propertyCall Detail Recordstrangulation
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction of the Appellant for the qatl-i-amd of the deceased and theft of her property. The core legal questions concerned the sufficiency of circumstantial evidence for a capital conviction and the impact of an inadequate examination under Section 342, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 on the trial's validity. The High Court held that while the case rested on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution successfully established an unbroken chain of events, including Call Detail Record (CDR) data placing the Appellant at the crime scene during the time of death and the subsequent recovery of the deceased’s stolen valuables from the Appellant’s possession. The Court affirmed that conviction can be based on circumstantial evidence provided it creates an unbroken chain linking the accused to the crime. Furthermore, the Court laid down that an error or omission in complying with Section 342, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 does not automatically vitiate a trial; it only does so if the error causes prejudice or a miscarriage of justice. The appeal was dismissed, and the conviction was sustained.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction for a capital offense be sustained solely on circumstantial evidence?
  • Does an inadequate examination of an accused under Section 342, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 automatically vitiate the trial?
  • What is the standard for determining if an error in Section 342, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 examination causes a miscarriage of justice?
  Read full judgment →
• Karachi Water & Sewerage Board through Assistant vs M/s. XenithPLJ 2020 Cr.C. (Karachi) 133 · Sindh High Court · 2019-02-27
  Ex-Officio Justice of PeaceJurisdictionAdministrative actionWater and Sewerage BoardIllegal hydrantsCriminal procedureScope of judicial review
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a revision petition challenging an order passed by an Additional District Judge, acting as an Ex-Officio Justice of Peace, which directed the de-sealing of premises previously sealed by the Karachi Water and Sewerage Board. The core legal question is whether an Ex-Officio Justice of Peace possesses the jurisdiction to interfere with the administrative actions of government departments or to undo actions taken in compliance with Supreme Court directives, even when police assistance was utilized. The High Court set aside the impugned order, holding that the lower forum exceeded its jurisdiction. The court established that the powers of an Ex-Officio Justice of Peace under Section 22-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 are strictly confined to issuing directions to police authorities regarding specific grievances, such as the non-registration of FIRs or police misconduct. These powers do not extend to reviewing or undoing the administrative actions of other government departments, nor can the Justice of Peace assume the role of a declaratory court to determine the legality of such departmental actions.

  Questions settled

  • Does an Ex-Officio Justice of Peace have the jurisdiction to review or undo administrative actions taken by government departments?
  • Can an Ex-Officio Justice of Peace exercise jurisdiction over a matter simply because police provided assistance to a government department during an operation?
  • Is the scope of Section 22-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 limited to issuing directions to police authorities regarding specific duties?
  Read full judgment →
• Karachi Gymkhana and others vs Usma n Ahmed Ansari and others2020 MLD 1073 · Sindh High Court · 2018-07-09Read full judgment →
• Kanwar Naveed Jameel (Mpa) vs Chief Sect: Sindh and Others2020 SHC 1298 · Sindh High Court · 2020-12-10Read full judgment →
• Kamran Mustafa vs Province of Sindh and others2020 SHC 812 · Sindh High Court · 2020-01-23Read full judgment →
• Kaloo vs Province of Sindh through Secretary (Land Utilization) Department2020 YLR 2362 · Sindh High Court · 2018-03-19Read full judgment →
• Kainat Soomro and Ors vs Province of SIndh and Ors2020 SHC 152 · Sindh High Court · 2020-02-13Read full judgment →
• Kainat Soomro and 2 others vs Province Of Sindh through Chief Secretary2020 PLD Sindh 611 · Sindh High Court · 2020-01-31
  rape trialSupreme Court guidelinesDNA testingin camera proceedingsvulnerable witnessesconstitutional mandateimplementation of judgment
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners approached the Sindh High Court seeking directions for the respondents to implement the Supreme Court's guidelines for the investigation, prosecution, and trial of rape cases as laid down in Salman Akram Raja v. Government of Punjab (2013 SCMR 203). Upon reviewing compliance reports submitted by judicial authorities regarding pending cases in District Courts and Anti-Terrorism Courts in Sindh, the High Court observed that implementation of measures such as mandatory DNA testing, in camera trials, video conferencing, and the installation of screens to shield victims and vulnerable witnesses remained alarmingly low. The Court held that decisions and directives of the Supreme Court are binding under Articles 189 and 190 of the Constitution and must be enforced in letter and spirit by all judicial and executive authorities. Consequently, the petition was disposed of with explicit directions issued to the Home Secretary, Inspector General of Police, Prosecutor General, District Judges, and Presiding Officers of Anti-Terrorism Courts in Sindh to ensure full compliance with the apex court's mandate.

  Questions settled

  • Are the decisions and legal principles enunciated by the Supreme Court binding on all other courts in Pakistan?
  • Do executive and judicial authorities have a constitutional duty to act in aid of the Supreme Court?
  • Can provincial authorities and courts be directed to fully implement guidelines established by the Supreme Court for rape trials and investigations?
  Read full judgment →
• K-Electric Limited vs Syed Anwar Ali & others2020 SHC 1346 · Sindh High Court · 2020-11-16Read full judgment →
• Junaid-ur-Rehman S/O Anees-ur- Rehman vs The State2020 SHC 316 · Sindh High Court · 2020-04-22
  police encounterretracted judicial confessionidentification paradeanti-terrorismocular evidenceforensic science laboratory reportpolice witness credibility
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the convictions and sentences handed down by an Anti-Terrorism Court regarding two separate police encounters resulting in the death of a police constable and injury to a Deputy Superintendent of Police. The core legal questions concerned whether the prosecution successfully proved the appellants' guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, the reliability of police witnesses, the validity of a retracted judicial confession, and the integrity of an identification parade. The Sindh High Court dismissed the appeals, affirming the trial court's judgment. The Court held that the prosecution provided consistent, trustworthy, and confidence-inspiring evidence, corroborated by medical reports, forensic science laboratory (FSL) findings, and the recovery of weapons at the scene. The Court established that police officials are competent witnesses whose testimony is not inherently unreliable, and that a retracted judicial confession remains legally admissible if the Court is satisfied it was made voluntarily. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that positive FSL reports and the arrest of the accused during active encounters sufficiently establish guilt, justifying the maintenance of the original sentences.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction be sustained based on the testimony of police officials alone?
  • Is a retracted judicial confession legally admissible as evidence against an accused?
  • Does the lack of enmity against police witnesses enhance the reliability of their testimony in a criminal trial?
  • Can positive forensic science laboratory reports regarding recovered weapons corroborate ocular evidence in a police encounter case?
  Read full judgment →
• Junaid Rehman Ansari and others vs The State and others2020 PLD Sindh 158 · Sindh High Court · 2019-09-16Read full judgment →
• Junaid Ahmed vs Province of Sindh and 03 others2020 SHC 36 · Sindh High Court · 2020-01-14Read full judgment →
• Junaid Ahmed Siddiqui vs M. Yaqoob Khan Niazi2020 MLD 1693, 2020 SHC 358 · Sindh High Court · 2020-05-18Read full judgment →
• Juma Khan & Another vs The State2020 SHC 566 · Sindh High Court · 2020-08-10
  pre-arrest baildismissal for non-prosecutionad-interim bailbail applicationcriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal bail application came up for hearing before the Sindh High Court, but no one appeared on behalf of the applicants nor was any intimation received. The court noted that although the applicants were previously extended the extraordinary relief of ad-interim pre-arrest bail, they failed to diligently pursue the matter, indicating a loss of interest. Consequently, the court dismissed the criminal bail application for non-prosecution and recalled the interim pre-arrest bail previously granted. The office was directed to send a copy of the order to the concerned SHO and the trial court for information and compliance. The core legal question involved the consequence of non-prosecution of a pre-arrest bail application. The court held that where applicants fail to diligently pursue their bail petition, the application is liable to be dismissed for non-prosecution resulting in the recall of interim relief. The key principle laid down is that the extraordinary relief of pre-arrest bail demands active and diligent prosecution by the applicant.

  Questions settled

  • What is the consequence of non-appearance and lack of diligent prosecution in a pre-arrest bail application?
  • Does the dismissal of a bail application for non-prosecution result in the recall of an interim pre-arrest bail already granted?
  Read full judgment →
• Jubilee General Insurance Company Ltd & another vs Federation of Pakistan2020 SHC 236 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Jilani @ Javed s/o Duwa Khan vs The State2020 SHC 344 · Sindh High Court · 2020-05-07
  dacoitycriminal appealanti-terrorismillegal arms possessionpolice encounterfalse implicationappreciation of evidencedeterrent sentence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the convictions and sentences imposed by an Anti-Terrorism Court for dacoity, illegal possession of arms, and explosives. The appellants contended that they were falsely implicated by the police following an alleged illegal detention and that no encounter occurred. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had proven the guilt of the appellants beyond a reasonable doubt or if the defense of false implication was credible. The High Court dismissed the appeals, upholding the convictions and sentences. The court held that the prosecution provided reliable, trustworthy, and confidence-inspiring evidence, including the testimony of the private complainant who had no enmity toward the appellants. The court emphasized that in cases involving heinous crimes like dacoity, courts must adopt a dynamic and pragmatic approach to evidence. It further ruled that a defense of false implication requires substantiation, such as prior complaints of illegal detention, which was absent here. Consequently, the court affirmed that deterrent sentences are appropriate for such offenses, particularly when the accused are apprehended at the scene with stolen property.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure of an accused to file a complaint regarding alleged illegal detention undermine a defense of false implication?
  • Can a conviction for dacoity be sustained solely on the testimony of a private complainant and police witnesses if no material contradictions exist?
  • Should courts adopt a dynamic and pragmatic approach in appreciating evidence in cases involving heinous crimes like dacoity?
  Read full judgment →
• Jhando Khan vs Province of Sindh through Secretary Revenue & others2020 SHC 634 · Sindh High Court · 2020-08-12Read full judgment →
• Jazaa Foods (Pvt.) Ltd. & another vs Junaid Jamshed (Pvt.) Ltd. & others2021 CLD 362, 2021 KLR Civil Cases 121, 2021 P C T L R 527, 2020 SHC 274 · Sindh High Court · 2020-04-07Read full judgment →
• Jawaid Ali vs The State2020 SHC 616 · Sindh High Court · 2020-08-11Read full judgment →
• Javed Qazi vs The State2020 SHC 186 · Sindh High Court · 2020-02-25
  statement of accusedSection 342 CrPCvitiated trialmiscarriage of justiceincriminating evidenceremandmurder trial
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal jail appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting and sentencing the appellant under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 to the death penalty for murder. The core legal question concerns whether the failure of the trial court to put incriminating pieces of evidence to the accused during his examination under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, along with procedural violations under Section 364 of the same Code, vitiates the trial and causes a miscarriage of justice. The Sindh High Court held that omitting to put material evidence to the accused under Section 342 Cr.P.C. causes severe prejudice, cannot be cured under Section 537 Cr.P.C., and vitiates the conviction and sentence. The court laid down the principle that every material piece of evidence relied upon by the prosecution must be explicitly put to the accused during Section 342 examination to afford a fair opportunity of explanation, and failure to do so renders the trial illegal, warranting a remand for retrial from the stage of recording the accused's statement.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure to put incriminating pieces of evidence to an accused during examination under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 vitiate the trial?
  • Can the omission of a trial court to question an accused regarding material evidence be cured under Section 537 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • What is the legal effect when a statement under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 is recorded in violation of the mandatory requirements of Section 364 of the same Code?
  • From what stage should a criminal trial be recommenced when an appellate court sets aside a judgment due to defective recording of the accused's statement?
  Read full judgment →
• Javed Baig vs The Director General Military Lands and Cantonment2020 SHC 706 · Sindh High Court · 2020-08-20Read full judgment →
• Javed Ali vs The State2020 SHC 534 · Sindh High Court · 2020-08-07
  pre-arrest bailnon-prohibitory clausecriminal procedurebail confirmationfirst offendertentative assessment
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns an application for the confirmation of interim pre-arrest bail filed by the applicant, Javed Ali, who was booked in an FIR involving the recovery of betel nuts and mainpuries (tobacco) from a truck. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to the confirmation of bail given the nature of the allegations and the statutory provisions involved. The Court observed that the investigation was complete, the case had been challaned, and the applicant was no longer required for further investigation. Furthermore, the Court noted the absence of a chemical report to verify the hazardous nature of the recovered material and highlighted that the offence charged did not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Holding that bail is the rule and refusal the exception in non-prohibitory offences, the Court confirmed the interim bail, emphasizing that the applicant was a first-time offender and the prosecution failed to establish exceptional grounds for withholding bail. The Court affirmed that the applicant must face trial, with observations being tentative.

  Questions settled

  • Is bail the rule and refusal the exception for offences not falling within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does the absence of a chemical report regarding recovered substances constitute grounds for further inquiry in a bail application?
  • Can bail be confirmed when the investigation is complete and the accused is no longer required for further investigation?
  Read full judgment →
• Javed & Another vs The State2020 SHC 512 · Sindh High Court · 2020-08-06Read full judgment →
• Jatoi and 6 others vs The State2020 MLD 1455 · Sindh High Court · 2020-02-04
  pre-arrest bailcommon intentionprohibitory clauseabductionmurdermala fidetentative assessment
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal bail application arises from a pre-arrest bail petition filed by the applicants seeking relief in a case registered for offenses including murder, abduction, and hurt under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the applicants were entitled to pre-arrest bail where they were specifically nominated in the FIR with active roles, shared a common intention in a heinous crime involving a death and multiple injuries arising from a motive of revenge, and failed to establish mala fide on the part of the complainant or investigating agency. The Sindh High Court dismissed the bail application, holding that pre-arrest bail is an extraordinary remedy unavailable to accused persons prima facie connected to heinous offenses falling within the prohibitory clause of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, particularly where a common intention under Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 attracts collective culpability regardless of individual minor roles, and where no mala fide or false implication is demonstrated.

  Questions settled

  • Is an accused entitled to pre-arrest bail when specifically nominated in an FIR for a heinous offense involving murder and abduction?
  • Does the application of Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 preclude the grant of bail based on lesser individual roles during a collective criminal assault?
  • What is the standard required for establishing mala fide to warrant the grant of pre-arrest bail in serious criminal cases?
  • Can a tentative assessment of medical evidence and victim statements under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 justify the dismissal of a pre-arrest bail petition?
  Read full judgment →
• Jan Muhammad vs The State2020 SHC 1364 · Sindh High Court · 2020-12-18
  post-arrest bailnarcoticsfurther inquirycriminal procedurebail applicationchemical examination delay
  Summary & questions settled

  The applicant sought post-arrest bail under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 after being charged with the possession of 1250 grams of charas, following the refusal of bail by the Special Court for Narcotics. The applicant contended innocence, alleging false implication by the police, a lack of independent witnesses, and a significant delay in the chemical examination of the case property. The State opposed the application, arguing the offence negatively impacts society at large. Upon review, the Court observed that the investigation was complete, the applicant had been in custody for over two months without effective trial progress, and there was no risk of evidence tampering. Consequently, the Court held that a case for further inquiry was established. The applicant was admitted to bail subject to furnishing a surety bond. The judgment reinforces the principle that where investigation is complete and trial progress is stagnant, the absence of independent witnesses and lack of risk regarding evidence tampering justify the grant of bail pending trial.

  Questions settled

  • Does the absence of independent witnesses in a narcotics case justify the grant of post-arrest bail?
  • Is the completion of investigation and lack of trial progress a valid ground for granting bail?
  • Can bail be granted where there is no apprehension of evidence tampering by the accused?
  Read full judgment →
• Jamil Sundrani vs The State2020 SHC 1232 · Sindh High Court · 2020-12-07
  pre-arrest bailfurther inquiryaffidavit of exonerationidentification of accusedcriminal procedureabduction
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns an application for pre-arrest bail filed by the applicant, Jamil Sundrani, in connection with F.I.R. No. 26 of 2020 registered for offences under Section 365-B of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The applicant's previous request for pre-arrest bail was declined by the Sessions Court. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to pre-arrest bail given that the complainant and prosecution witnesses had filed affidavits exonerating him, and the alleged abductee had failed to identify the applicant during cross-examination. The Court held that the case against the applicant fell within the ambit of further inquiry as envisaged under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Consequently, the Court confirmed the interim pre-arrest bail previously granted to the applicant. The key principle laid down is that where the complainant and material prosecution witnesses exonerate an accused through affidavits and the victim fails to identify the accused, the case warrants further inquiry, thereby justifying the grant of bail.

  Questions settled

  • Does the filing of affidavits by the complainant and prosecution witnesses exonerating an accused constitute grounds for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can pre-arrest bail be granted when the alleged victim fails to identify the accused in court?
  • Is a case considered one of further inquiry when the prosecution does not oppose the grant of bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Jamal Nasir vs Government of Sindh and 04 others2020 SHC 8 · Sindh High Court · 2020-01-10Read full judgment →
• Jamal Khan vs The State2020 P Cr. L J 1589 · Sindh High Court · 2019-05-30
  criminal jail appealmurderdeath sentencebenefit of doubtcontradictory evidencechance witnesseswithholding of material witnessesacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal jail appeal assails the conviction and death sentence of the appellant handed down by the trial court for the murder of his wife under section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The prosecution alleged that the appellant attacked the deceased with a hatchet at night in the presence of eye-witnesses, driven by a domestic dispute. Upon hearing the appeal, the Sindh High Court examined the record and noted severe contradictions among the statements of key prosecution witnesses, discrepancies regarding the alleged motive, an unexplained delay in lodging the FIR, and the deliberate withholding of the major children of the deceased who were present at the scene. The court held that multiple circumstances created deep dents and reasonable doubt in the prosecution's narrative. Consequently, the High Court laid down the principle that if a single circumstance creates a reasonable doubt, the benefit of doubt must be extended to the accused as a matter of right. The appeal was allowed, the conviction and death sentence were set aside, and the appellant was acquitted of the charge.

  Questions settled

  • Whether material contradictions among eye-witnesses are sufficient to create reasonable doubt in a murder case?
  • What is the legal effect of the prosecution failing to examine natural and primary witnesses present at the scene of the crime?
  • Is an accused entitled to the benefit of doubt as a matter of right when the prosecution fails to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt?
  • Does the failure to establish the alleged motive weaken the prosecution case in a criminal trial?
  Read full judgment →
• Jamal Khan vs Province Of Sindh & Others2020 SHC 484 · Sindh High Court · 2020-08-05Read full judgment →
• Jam Saifullah Khan vs Election Commission of Pakistan (`Ecp') through secretary and 17 others2020 YLR 132 · Sindh High Court · 2019-04-24Read full judgment →
• Jalil Ahmed @ Abdul Jalil vs Gul Muhammad & Others2020 SHC 1136 · Sindh High Court · 2020-11-30Read full judgment →
• Jalaluddin Bangulani vs The State2020 SHC 832 · Sindh High Court · 2020-09-10
  post-arrest bailfurther inquirydelayed FIRmedical contradictionattempt to murderunlawful assembly
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a criminal bail application filed by the applicant Jalaluddin Bangulani seeking post-arrest bail in a case registered regarding an unlawful assembly, attempt to commit murder, and causing injuries with a hatchet, after his bail plea was dismissed by the trial court. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to post-arrest bail in light of the delayed FIR, medical discrepancy regarding the weapon used, lack of injury repetition, absence of recovery, and previous bail granted to co-accused. The Sindh High Court held that the guilt of the applicant called for further inquiry under Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court laid down the principle that unexplained delay in lodging the FIR, contradiction between ocular testimony and medical evidence regarding the weapon, absence of injury repetition, and consistency of treatment with co-accused already on bail constitute grounds for making a case one of further inquiry, warranting the grant of post-arrest bail.

  Questions settled

  • Whether unexplained delay in lodging the FIR makes a case one of further inquiry for the purpose of bail?
  • Does a contradiction between ocular testimony and medical evidence regarding the weapon used justify the grant of post-arrest bail?
  • Whether the rule of consistency applies when co-accused have already been admitted to bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Jalal @ Babu vs The State2020 SHC 652 · Sindh High Court · 2020-08-17
  post-arrest bailunlicensed weaponSindh Arms Actfurther inquirypersonal libertycriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by the accused, Jalal alias Babu, who was charged under Section 25 of the Sindh Arms Act, 2013, following an alleged recovery of an unlicensed weapon during his arrest in a separate criminal case. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to bail given that the investigation was complete, he was no longer required for further interrogation, and he had already been granted bail in the primary case from which the current charge originated. The Court held that the applicant was entitled to bail, observing that the liberty of an individual should not be curtailed without sufficient legal justification, particularly when the investigation is finalized and there is no risk of evidence tampering. The Court emphasized that in bail proceedings, the focus should not be on the maximum statutory sentence, but rather on the sentence likely to be imposed based on the specific facts and circumstances of the case. Consequently, the bail application was allowed, subject to the applicant furnishing solvent surety.

  Questions settled

  • Should a court consider the maximum statutory sentence or the likely sentence when deciding a bail application?
  • Is an accused entitled to bail in an offshoot case when they have already been granted bail in the main case?
  • Does the completion of an investigation and the lack of necessity for further interrogation constitute valid grounds for granting post-arrest bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Jahanzaib Khan vs Qamar Zaman & Others2020 SHC 104 · Sindh High Court · 2020-01-30Read full judgment →
• Jaffar Ali vs VIII th. Addl. D.J Hyd. and others2020 SHC 40 · Sindh High Court · 2020-01-15Read full judgment →
• Jaag Broadcasting Systems (Private) Limited, through Duly Authorized2020 CLC 1081 · Sindh High Court · 2019-02-01Read full judgment →
• Jaag Broadcasting Systems (Private) Limited through Duly Authorized2020 YLR 2113 · Sindh High Court · 2019-04-30Read full judgment →
• Ismail Waliullah and 2 others vs The State2020 MLD 78 · Sindh High Court · 2019-11-25
  post-arrest bailfake passportsforeigners actfurther inquirydocumentary evidenceprohibitory clausecomplainant as investigator
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from an application for post-arrest bail filed by the applicants, who were charged under sections 3(2), 13/14 of the Foreigners Act, 1946, and sections 420, 468, 471, and 109 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, for attempting to travel from Pakistan to Canada on alleged fake passports and visas. The core legal question was whether the applicants were entitled to post-arrest bail when the case rested entirely on documentary evidence awaiting foreign verification and where the offences fell outside the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The court held that the case fell within the purview of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, as verification reports from foreign authorities were awaited and the evidentiary value of the documents was subject to trial. Furthermore, the court noted that the complainant and the investigator being the same person violated the norms of a fair criminal justice system. The court confirmed the grant of post-arrest bail, establishing that where documentary evidence requires verification and offences do not fall within the prohibitory clause, bail should be granted.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an accused is entitled to post-arrest bail when the prosecution case depends entirely on documentary evidence awaiting verification from foreign authorities?
  • Does a case where the offences do not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 warrant the grant of bail for further inquiry?
  • Is it permissible under the norms of the criminal justice system for the author of the First Information Report to also act as the investigating officer?
  Read full judgment →
• Irshad Rafique vs SHO Hali Road Hyd & others2020 SHC 1252 · Sindh High Court · 2020-12-07Read full judgment →
• Irshad Hussain vs Province of Sindh & Others2020 PLC (C.S.) 1411, 2020 SHC 276 · Sindh High Court · 2020-04-07
  constitutional petitioninter-cadre absorptionrepatriationvoid ab initiocivil servantcontempt of courtrecovery of salary differential
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, challenged the absorption and appointment of respondent No.7 from a Junior School Teacher (BPS-9) in the Education Department to a Senior Translator (BPS-16) in the Provincial Assembly of Sindh. The core legal questions concerned whether such inter-cadre absorption violated judgments of the Supreme Court of Pakistan and whether a fact-finding committee could lawfully recall a repatriation order issued in compliance therewith. The Sindh High Court held that the absorption was void ab initio, being contrary to settled law against inter-cadre absorption and made without complying with mandatory recruitment rules. The Court laid down that subordinate authorities possess no jurisdiction to entertain appeals against or recall repatriations ordered pursuant to Supreme Court directives, and that illegal absorption cannot be regularized under the guise of administrative mistakes or newly created posts, mandating the recovery of pay scale differentials.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an employee can be absorbed across different cadres from a lower pay scale to a higher pay scale in violation of established Supreme Court precedents?
  • Does a subordinate department or fact-finding committee have the jurisdiction to entertain an appeal against and recall a repatriation order issued in compliance with Supreme Court orders?
  • Whether initial appointments to posts in grades 5 to 16 in the Provincial Assembly Secretariat require mandatory advertisement in newspapers under the relevant service rules?
  • Are civil servants who obtained illegal absorption liable to refund the differential amount received in higher pay scales upon being repatriated to their parent departments?
  Read full judgment →
• Irshad Ahmed Gopang and others vs National Accountability Bureau2020 YLR 2001 · Sindh High Court · 2020-03-05Read full judgment →
• Irfan Ullah Khan Asif and another vs 1st Additional District And Sessions2020 MLD 1352 · Sindh High Court · 2019-08-29
  stricturesadverse remarksnatural justicevexatious recoveryaudi alteram partemSection 265-K Cr.P.C.Sindh Arms Act 2013police accountability
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal miscellaneous application challenges strictures passed by the 1st Additional District and Sessions Judge, Karachi (Central), against two police officers, SIP Irfanullah Khan Asif and ASI Ahmed Bukhsh Leghari, in an order acquitting an accused under Section 265-K of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The trial court, while acquitting the accused, had declared the police officers responsible for a fake and vexatious recovery under the Sindh Arms Act, 2013, and directed departmental proceedings against them without prior notice or hearing. The core legal question was whether a trial court can pass such adverse strictures against police officers without conducting a detailed inquiry or providing them an opportunity to be heard. The High Court held that the trial court acted in a hasty and mechanical manner, violating the principles of natural justice and the specific requirements of Section 26 of the Sindh Arms Act, 2013. The Court set aside the strictures, ruling that a detailed inquiry and an opportunity of hearing are mandatory prerequisites before declaring any officer responsible for vexatious recovery, and remanded the matter for compliance with these legal requirements.

  Questions settled

  • Can a trial court pass adverse strictures against police officers for fake recovery without conducting a detailed inquiry?
  • Is it a violation of natural justice to pass adverse remarks against police officers without providing them an opportunity of being heard?
  • Does Section 26 of the Sindh Arms Act, 2013 require a detailed inquiry before declaring a police officer responsible for a vexatious recovery?
  Read full judgment →
• Irfan Ali vs The State2020 SHC 990 · Sindh High Court · 2020-11-12
  Qatl-e-amdcompromiseacquittaldeath sentenceQisas and Diyatmurder reference
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and death sentence of the appellant, Irfan Ali, handed down by the trial court under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the Qatl-e-amd of Noor Muhammad, along with a reference for confirmation of the death sentence. During the pendency of the appeal, the appellant filed applications seeking acquittal based on a compromise reached with the legal heirs of the deceased. Upon inquiry, the trial court verified that all adult legal heirs, the widow, and the Wali of the minor legal heir had voluntarily pardoned the appellant by waiving their rights of Qisas and Diyat, with the minor's share of Diyat duly deposited in court. The State raised no objection. The High Court accepted the compromise as genuine, voluntary, and in the interest of peace, thereby acquitting the appellant pursuant to Section 345(6) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and disposing of the murder reference accordingly.

  Questions settled

  • Can an offence under Section 302 PPC be compounded with the legal heirs of the deceased?
  • What is the procedure for accepting a compromise involving a minor legal heir in a murder case?
  • Whether an appellate court can acquit a convicted person based on a compromise reached during the hearing of an appeal?
  Read full judgment →
• Irfan Ali vs The Secretary, Sindh Local Government Board & 02 others2020 SHC 204 · Sindh High Court · 2020-03-03Read full judgment →
• Irfan Ali vs Additional Sessions Judge, Shahdadpur and another2020 YLR 715 · Sindh High Court · 2018-10-15
  surety bond forfeiturebail bondabsconding accusedcriminal revisionsurety liabilitySection 514 CrPC
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision application challenges an order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Shahdadpur, which penalized the applicant in the sum of Rs. 50,000 for failing to produce an accused person for whom he had stood surety. The core legal question was whether the trial court was justified in forfeiting the full amount of the surety bond when the accused failed to appear, despite the surety's claims of financial hardship and benevolence. The Court dismissed the revision application, holding that once an accused jumps bail, the surety is under a strict legal obligation to produce the accused, and the entire surety amount is liable to be forfeited. The Court emphasized that courts should not show leniency in such matters, especially given the current law and order situation and the need to uphold the rule of law. The principle laid down is that the forfeiture of a bail bond should be strictly enforced to discourage accused persons from absconding, and the surety's personal financial circumstances or lack of monetary gain do not mitigate their liability under the bond.

  Questions settled

  • Is a surety liable for the full amount of the bail bond if the accused fails to appear in court?
  • Can a surety claim exemption from bond forfeiture based on financial hardship or lack of monetary gain?
  • What is the judicial approach toward imposing leniency when an accused jumps bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Iran Central Iron Ore Company vs Pakistan Steel Mills Corporation2021 YLR 613, 2020 SHC 182 · Sindh High Court · 2020-02-24Read full judgment →
• Iqtidar Muhammad Khan vs E.D.O (Revenue) and Ors2020 SHC 892 · Sindh High Court · 2020-10-13Read full judgment →
• Iqbal @ Muhammad Iqbal vs The State2020 SHC 1326 · Sindh High Court · 2020-12-11
  suspension of sentencebail pending appealshort sentenceappellate discretioncriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns an application for the suspension of sentence and grant of bail pending appeal filed by the appellants, who were convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Dadu, for offences punishable under Sections 337-A(i) and 337-L(ii) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The appellants were sentenced to two years of rigorous imprisonment with 'Daman' on each count. The core legal question was whether the appellants were entitled to suspension of their sentence and release on bail during the pendency of their appeal, given the relatively short duration of the sentence and the likelihood of delay in the appeal's final hearing. The Court, noting that the aggregate sentence was two years and that the appeal would likely take time to be heard, held that the suspension of the impugned judgment was appropriate. Consequently, the Court granted the application, ordering the appellants' release on bail subject to the furnishing of surety. The principle laid down is that where a sentence is short and the appellate process is likely to be protracted, the suspension of sentence and release on bail is a permissible exercise of judicial discretion.

  Questions settled

  • Can a sentence be suspended and bail granted pending appeal when the sentence is of a short duration?
  • Does the likelihood of delay in the hearing of an appeal justify the suspension of a sentence?
  • Is the consent of the State a relevant factor in granting bail pending appeal?
  Read full judgment →
• Inayat Ali Zuar vs The State2020 SHC 654 · Sindh High Court · 2020-08-17
  pre-arrest bailprohibitory clausefurther inquirydelayed FIR statementmedical certificatelockdown violation
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from two bail applications seeking pre-arrest bail in Crime No. 71 of 2020 registered at Police Station Husri/Pabban Hyderabad. The core legal question concerns whether the accused are entitled to pre-arrest bail where the offenses charged either are bailable or fall outside the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and where questions of further inquiry arise regarding delayed un-nominated statements and challenged medical certificates. The Sindh High Court held that the applications should be allowed, confirming the interim pre-arrest bails. The court established that where offenses do not fall within the prohibitory clause, injuries are simple and challenged before a Medical Board, investigation is complete, and some applicants are implicated belatedly via statements under Section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, the case warrants further inquiry and sending the accused to jail serves no useful purpose.

  Questions settled

  • Are accused entitled to pre-arrest bail when the charged offenses do not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does the inclusion of un-nominated accused persons through a belated statement under Section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 constitute grounds for further inquiry?
  • Can pre-arrest bail be confirmed where the medical certificate regarding injuries is challenged before a Medical Board and the injuries are simple in nature?
  Read full judgment →
• Imtiaz Khan vs The State2020 MLD 1977 · Sindh High Court · 2020-03-09
  post-arrest bailhomicidestrangulationmedico-legal reportcircumstantial evidencetentative assessmentdelay in FIR
  Summary & questions settled

  The applicant sought post-arrest bail in a case registered under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, following the death of his wife. The prosecution alleged homicide, citing a medico-legal report indicating death by strangulation, whereas the applicant contended the death was a suicide following a domestic altercation. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to bail given the circumstantial evidence and the conflicting accounts of suicide versus homicide. The Court held that at the bail stage, only a tentative assessment of the material is required. The Court observed that the medico-legal report, which classified the death as homicide due to strangulation, contradicted the applicant's claim of suicide. Furthermore, the recovery of a bamboo stick and a dupatta from the scene corroborated the medical findings. Consequently, the Court determined that reasonable grounds existed to connect the applicant to the offence, and the delay in lodging the FIR was sufficiently explained by the initial uncertainty regarding the cause of death. The bail application was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Does a medico-legal report opining homicide constitute sufficient grounds to deny bail in a case of alleged suicide?
  • Is a delay in lodging an FIR fatal to the prosecution's case when the delay is explained by the initial uncertainty regarding the cause of death?
  • What is the scope of inquiry for a court when considering a post-arrest bail application based on circumstantial evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Imtiaz Ali vs Qurban Ali and 2 others2020 MLD 1188 · Sindh High Court · 2019-10-11
  acquittal appealmurderocular evidencemedical corroborationcrime emptyforensic science laboratorydouble presumption of innocence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal acquittal appeal is directed against the judgment of the trial court whereby the respondents were acquitted of the charge under sections 302 and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The prosecution alleged that the respondents, in furtherance of their common intention, committed the murder of the deceased by firing. The core legal questions involved the appreciation of ocular evidence, delay in lodging the FIR, contradiction between medical and ocular evidence regarding the distance of firing, and the evidentiary value of delayed dispatch of crime empties and weapon to the Forensic Science Laboratory. The court held that the ocular account was unreliable, contradicted by medical evidence, and that the unexplained delay in sending crime empties to the forensic laboratory rendered the recovery tainted and inconsequential. Upholding the trial court's acquittal, the court reiterated the principle that a double presumption of innocence is attached to an acquittal order, which warrants no interference unless found to be arbitrary or perverse.

  Questions settled

  • Whether delayed dispatch of crime empties to the forensic laboratory along with the recovered weapon renders the recovery evidence tainted?
  • Can medical evidence corroborate an ocular account when the testimonies of eyewitnesses contradict the medical findings regarding the distance of firing?
  • What are the principles for interfering with an order of acquittal possessing a double presumption of innocence?
  • Is a tainted piece of evidence sufficient to corroborate another tainted piece of evidence in a criminal trial?
  Read full judgment →
• Imtiaz Ahmed Shah vs The Province of Sindh and 02 others2020 SHC 976 · Sindh High Court · 2020-01-15Read full judgment →
• Imtiaz @ Faqeera Jakhrani vs The State2020 SHC 828 · Sindh High Court · 2020-09-10
  post-arrest bailfurther inquiryprohibitory clausedelayed FIRweak identification evidencecriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  The applicant sought post-arrest bail after being refused by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kashmore, in a case involving allegations of attempted theft and causing injuries to a complainant. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to bail given the circumstances of the case, specifically regarding the delay in lodging the FIR, the nature of the evidence, and the severity of the injuries. The Court held that the applicant was entitled to bail, reasoning that the one-day delay in the FIR was unexplained, the identification of the applicant under a light bulb was weak evidence, no theft actually occurred, and the injuries sustained did not fall within the prohibitory clause of the relevant criminal procedure law. Furthermore, the absence of weapon recovery contributed to the conclusion that the applicant's guilt required further inquiry. Consequently, the Court admitted the applicant to post-arrest bail, emphasizing that the case against him was not sufficiently strong to warrant continued incarceration pending trial.

  Questions settled

  • Does an unexplained delay in lodging an FIR justify the grant of post-arrest bail?
  • Is identification of an accused under artificial light considered weak evidence in bail proceedings?
  • Does the absence of injuries falling within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 entitle an accused to bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Imran Faiz vs Syed Asad Ali Shah & Others2020 SHC 136 · Sindh High Court · 2020-02-07Read full judgment →
• Imran Ahmed Khanzada and another vs Province of Sindh and 03 others2020 SHC 1192 · Sindh High Court · 2020-12-04
  quo warrantoregularization of contract employeespublic officelocus standiSupreme Court directivescivil servantsappointment and transfer
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed before the Sindh High Court seeking a writ of quo warranto against respondent No. 4, challenging her appointment, transfer, and subsequent regularization as Director I.T. (BPS-18) in the Sindh Police Department, as well as her initial appointment as a Consultant. The core legal questions involved whether respondent No. 4 could legally hold the charge of Director I.T. and whether her case fell within the ambit of Section 3 of the Sindh (Regularization of Adhoc and Contract Employees) Act, 2013. The Court held that while respondent No. 4 was validly appointed as Project Director I.T. pursuant to directions of the Supreme Court, her subsequent posting and regularization as Director I.T. instead of Project Director I.T. violated the Supreme Court's mandate and mandatory appointment rules. The Court set aside the notifications regularizing her as Director I.T., directing instead that she shall be treated and deemed to be the Project Director I.T. (BPS-18). The key principle laid down is that public office holders must strictly adhere to the specific designations and mechanisms authorized by judicial commands and statutory rules, and contractual or ad-hoc regularization cannot bypass competitive recruitment processes.

  Questions settled

  • Whether respondent No.4 can hold the charge for the post of Director I.T. in BPS-18 under the law?
  • Whether respondent No.4's case falls within the ambit of Section 3 of the Sindh (Regularization of Adhoc and Contract Employees) Act, 2013?
  • Does a person invoking the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 199 for a writ of quo warranto need to fulfill the stringent conditions of being an aggrieved person?
  Read full judgment →
• Imran Ahmed Ansari vs Federation of Pakistan and another2020 SHC 68 · Sindh High Court · 2020-01-22Read full judgment →
• Imkaan Welfare Organisation vs Province of Sindh & another2020 SHC 1144 · Sindh High Court · 2020-12-02Read full judgment →
• Imdad Hussain Channa & Others vs Adj-II/Ex-Officio Justice of Peace Kotri2020 SHC 1302 · Sindh High Court · 2020-12-10Read full judgment →
• Iftikhar Ahmed Soomro vs City District Government, Karachi & others2020 SHC 1042 · Sindh High Court · 2020-10-06Read full judgment →
• Iftikhar Ahmed Qureshi and others vs Muhammad Abrar Ahmed Qureshi2020 CLC 1857 · Sindh High Court · 2020-03-02Read full judgment →
• Ibrahim Fibres Limited vs Customs Appellate Tribunal & Others2020 SHC 1338 · Sindh High Court · 2020-12-15Read full judgment →
• Ibrahim & Others vs The State2020 SHC 1062 · Sindh High Court · 2020-11-23
  post-arrest bailfurther inquirydelay in FIRprinciple of consistencyunlawful assemblycriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed under Section 498 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 by applicants accused of forming an unlawful assembly and causing injuries to the complainant with the intent to commit murder. The core legal question was whether the applicants were entitled to bail given the circumstances of the case, specifically considering the delay in the FIR, the nature of the injuries, and the principle of consistency regarding co-accused already granted bail. The Court held that the applicants were entitled to post-arrest bail. The ratio of the decision rests on the fact that the three-day delay in lodging the FIR remained unexplained, no specific injury was attributed to the applicants, and the investigation was complete. Furthermore, the Court applied the principle of consistency, noting that co-accused had already been admitted to bail. Consequently, the Court determined that the case against the applicants required further inquiry, thereby satisfying the criteria for bail under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.

  Questions settled

  • Does an unexplained delay in lodging an FIR constitute a ground for granting post-arrest bail?
  • Is the principle of consistency applicable when co-accused have already been granted bail?
  • Does the completion of an investigation support the grant of bail on the point of further inquiry?
  Read full judgment →
• Ibrahim & Ors vs The State2020 SHC 544 · Sindh High Court · 2020-08-10
  pre-arrest bailconfirmation of baildelay in FIRcriminal proceduretentative assessmentbail parity
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns an application for the confirmation of interim pre-arrest bail filed by the applicants, who were accused of causing injuries to the complainant party using kicks and fists. The core legal question was whether the applicants were entitled to confirmation of their pre-arrest bail given the circumstances of the case, including the delay in the registration of the First Information Report (FIR) and the fact that a co-accused, who was armed with a weapon, had already been granted bail by the trial court. The High Court observed that there was an inordinate delay of 19 days in lodging the FIR without a satisfactory explanation. Furthermore, the court noted that the applicants were on better footing than the co-accused who had already received bail. Since the investigation was complete and the challan had been submitted, the court held that the applicants were no longer required for investigative purposes. Consequently, the court confirmed the interim pre-arrest bail, emphasizing that the observations made were tentative and should not influence the trial court's final decision on the merits.

  Questions settled

  • Does an inordinate, unexplained delay in the registration of an FIR constitute a ground for the confirmation of pre-arrest bail?
  • Is an accused entitled to bail on the principle of parity if a co-accused has already been granted bail by the trial court?
  • Should pre-arrest bail be confirmed when the investigation is complete and the challan has been submitted to the court?
  Read full judgment →
• Hyderabad Municipal Corporation vs Province of Sindh & others2020 SHC 372 · Sindh High Court · 2020-02-12Read full judgment →
• Hussain Ali vs The State2020 MLD 70 · Sindh High Court · 2018-11-16
  narcoticscriminal appealinvestigating officerchemical analysisbenefit of doubtsafe custodyacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellant for transporting 73.79 kg of Charas, an offence under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. The core legal questions concern the validity of an investigation where the complainant and the investigating officer are the same person, the impact of unexplained delays in sending narcotics for chemical analysis, and the consequences of failing to examine independent witnesses present at the scene. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The court emphasized that the complainant and investigating officer should not be the same person, as this compromises the impartiality of the investigation. Furthermore, the court ruled that an unexplained 14-day delay in transmitting case property to the chemical examiner, violating the 72-hour requirement under the Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analysts) Rules, 2001, creates serious doubt regarding the safe custody of the narcotics. Consequently, the court acquitted the appellant, reaffirming the principle that any reasonable doubt in the prosecution's case must be resolved in favor of the accused as a matter of right.

  Questions settled

  • Does the fact that the complainant and the investigating officer are the same person invalidate a criminal investigation?
  • What is the legal consequence of an unexplained delay in sending recovered narcotics for chemical analysis?
  • Is the failure to examine independent witnesses present at the scene of recovery fatal to the prosecution's case?
  • Does a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt entitle an accused to acquittal?
  Read full judgment →
• Husein Industries Ltd. through authorized representative vs Sui Southern2020 PLD Sindh 551 · Sindh High Court · 2020-03-09
  bank guaranteetemporary injunctionunconditional undertakingperformance guaranteespecial equityencashmentindependent contract
  Summary & questions settled

  The Plaintiff, a principal debtor, sought a temporary injunction to restrain the Defendant (creditor) from encashing seven bank guarantees provided to secure gas supply payments. The Plaintiff argued that the creditor had over-billed for gas and that a long-standing billing dispute existed, creating a 'special equity' to maintain the status quo. The core legal question was whether the court should restrain the encashment of these bank guarantees given the existence of an underlying contractual dispute. The Court held that the bank guarantees constituted independent contracts between the surety (bank) and the creditor, to be construed strictly on their own terms. Since the guarantees contained unconditional undertakings to pay upon demand without reference to the principal debtor, and did not condition payment on the resolution of underlying disputes, the Court refused to grant the injunction. The Court affirmed that unless fraud or a specific contractual condition tying encashment to a breach determination is proven, courts will not restrain the encashment of such unconditional bank guarantees, regardless of pending disputes between the principal debtor and the creditor.

  Questions settled

  • Are bank guarantees considered independent contracts separate from the underlying agreement between the creditor and the principal debtor?
  • Under what circumstances will a court grant an injunction to restrain the encashment of an unconditional bank guarantee?
  • Does the existence of a pending billing dispute between the parties constitute 'special equity' sufficient to restrain the encashment of an unconditional bank guarantee?
  • How are bank guarantees containing unconditional payment terms interpreted by the courts in Pakistan?
  Read full judgment →
• Humayon Khan Mandukhail vs Latif Afghan & Ors.2020 SHC 108 · Sindh High Court · 2020-01-31Read full judgment →
• Head Master, Government High School Ratodero and 3 others vs Imamuddin2020 CLC 1568 · Sindh High Court · 2019-02-21Read full judgment →
• Hays Trading and Shipping through Authorized Representative vs M.V.2020 PLD Sindh 146, 2020 CLD 95 · Sindh High Court · 2019-09-23Read full judgment →
• Hayat Khan & Ors vs The State2020 SHC 994 · Sindh High Court · 2020-11-09
  pre-arrest bailprohibitory clausenon-vital injuryfurther inquirycriminal procedurebail confirmation
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns an application for confirmation of interim pre-arrest bail filed by several accused persons nominated in an FIR. The core legal question was whether the applicants were entitled to the confirmation of pre-arrest bail, given the nature of the injuries attributed to them and the statutory limitations regarding the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The court observed that the injury attributed to the primary accused, Hayat Khan, was on a non-vital part of the body and was not declared detrimental to health or life by the medical officer. Regarding the other applicants, the court noted that the charged offences, excluding Section 452, were bailable or carried a maximum punishment not exceeding seven years, thus falling outside the prohibitory clause. Relying on established Supreme Court precedents, the court held that the case against the applicants required further inquiry. Consequently, the court confirmed the interim pre-arrest bail, directing the applicants to continue their appearance before the trial court until the final adjudication of the case.

  Questions settled

  • Does an injury to a non-vital part of the body, not declared detrimental to life, justify the grant of bail?
  • Does a case where the maximum punishment for the charged offences does not exceed seven years fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is pre-arrest bail confirmable when the case against the accused requires further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Hanif vs The State2020 SHC 1000 · Sindh High Court · 2020-10-14
  post-arrest bailnarcoticsrecovery proceedingschemical report delayfurther inquiryindependent witnesses
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by the applicant, Hanif, who was charged with the possession of 3000 grams of charas under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to bail given the circumstances of the recovery and the status of the investigation. The Court held that the applicant was entitled to post-arrest bail, primarily due to the absence of independent witnesses during the recovery proceedings in a populated area, a significant delay in sending the contraband for chemical analysis, and the fact that the investigation was complete with no risk of evidence tampering. Furthermore, the Court noted the applicant's lack of prior criminal record and his three-month period of incarceration without trial progress. The key principle laid down is that where the prosecution fails to associate private witnesses in a recovery proceeding and there is an unexplained delay in chemical analysis, the case warrants further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, justifying the grant of bail.

  Questions settled

  • Does the absence of independent witnesses during a narcotics recovery proceeding constitute grounds for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can an unexplained delay in sending contraband for chemical analysis justify the grant of post-arrest bail?
  • Is the continuous detention of an accused without trial progress a valid consideration for granting bail in narcotics cases?
  Read full judgment →
• Hanif Gohar vs Anjum Nisar2020 SHC 1202 · Sindh High Court · 2020-11-23
  constitutional petitiontrade organizationselection disputeexhaustion of remedieswrit jurisdictionstatutory interpretationFPCCI election
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged the election results of the Federation of Pakistan Chambers of Commerce & Industry (FPCCI) for 2020, specifically contesting the Regulator’s orders that permitted a candidate to represent two different trade associations simultaneously. The petitioner argued that this dual representation, facilitated by the Regulator, was unlawful under the Trade Organizations Act 2013 and distorted the election outcome. The core legal questions concerned the maintainability of a constitutional petition in the presence of an alternate statutory appellate remedy and the interpretation of Section 20 of the 2013 Act regarding membership restrictions. The Court held that the petition was not maintainable, emphasizing that the High Court’s jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution should not be invoked when an adequate statutory remedy exists under Section 21 of the 2013 Act. Furthermore, the Court ruled that Section 20 of the 2013 Act does not explicitly prohibit membership in multiple trade organizations. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, with the Court directing the Federal Government to consider regulatory reforms to address potential electoral mischief arising from multiple memberships.

  Questions settled

  • Does the constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 lie when an adequate statutory appellate remedy is available under the Trade Organizations Act 2013?
  • Does Section 20 of the Trade Organizations Act 2013 prohibit a person from being a member of or representing more than one trade organization?
  • Can a High Court interfere in an election matter under its constitutional jurisdiction where the petitioner has failed to exhaust the appellate hierarchy provided by the governing statute?
  Read full judgment →
• Hanfia Alamgir Jame Masjid Trust through Chairman of the Trust vs Mst.2020 MLD 46 · Sindh High Court · 2018-09-28
  illegal dispossessioncriminal revisionproxy accusedcriminal liabilitylandlord and tenantarm-twisting
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision application was filed by the Applicant Trust to assail the dismissal of its application under Section 3 of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, by the Additional Sessions Judge. The core legal question revolved around whether criminal proceedings and an application for illegal dispossession could be maintained against a respondent mother through an attorney when the alleged physical act of dispossession was committed by her son, and whether such naming amounted to arm-twisting. The Sindh High Court held that a criminal case cannot be proceeded against a person through an attorney, and involving a household woman while the actual physical act was attributed to her son demonstrated an attempt to intensify pressure and arm-twist the respondent. The court dismissed the revision application with the observation that the applicant may file a proper application against the actual persons involved, laying down the principle that criminal liability and proceedings under the Illegal Dispossession Act cannot be deflected onto proxy parties or maintained through attorneys.

  Questions settled

  • Can a criminal case under the Illegal Dispossession Act be proceeded against a person through an attorney?
  • Whether an application under Section 3 of the Illegal Dispossession Act can be maintained against a family member who did not commit the actual physical act of dispossession?
  • Does the nomination of a proxy party in a criminal complaint to intensify pressure on an opponent amount to arm-twisting?
  Read full judgment →
• Hameedullah Khan and another vs Federation of Pakistan and others2021 MLD 658, 2020 SHC 750 · Sindh High Court · 2020-09-17Read full judgment →
• Hameeda vs The State2020 YLR 1345 · Sindh High Court · 2019-12-06
  post-arrest bailmurderproviso to section 497evidentiary doubtpost-mortem reportwomen's bail
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by the applicant, who is accused of murdering her husband alongside her children. The core legal question was whether the applicant, a woman accused of a capital offense, was entitled to the concession of bail under the statutory proviso for women, particularly given the evidentiary status of the case. The Court held that the applicant was entitled to post-arrest bail. The ratio of the decision rests on several factors: the co-accused (the children) had already been granted bail; the material prosecution witnesses had already been examined, negating the risk of evidence tampering; and, crucially, the post-mortem report indicated a significant delay between the infliction of injuries and the time of death, casting serious doubt on the prosecution's version of events. Furthermore, the Court emphasized the principle that under the proviso to Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, women are entitled to favorable consideration for bail, even in cases involving serious offenses, provided the circumstances warrant such relief.

  Questions settled

  • Is a woman accused of a non-bailable offense entitled to favorable consideration for bail under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does a significant delay between the infliction of injuries and the time of death, as shown in a post-mortem report, constitute grounds for granting bail?
  • Can a trial court cancel bail without a reference to the High Court if the accused misuses the concession?
  Read full judgment →
• Hameed A. Haroon vs. Hussain A. Haroon & Others vs Yousuf A.Haroon &2020 PLD Sindh 507, 2020 SHC 154 · Sindh High Court · 2020-02-17Read full judgment →