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. 232594 judgments in total.
- ASIF ALI ZARDARI Versus State2005 MLD 314 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- ABDUL KARIM Versus State2005 MLD 231 · Sindh High Court · 2004-10-18Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD ARAB Versus NOOR AHMED2005 MLD 223 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- ZULJAN Versus TARIQ AHMED2005 MLD 210 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- AHMED ALI Versus THE STATE2005 MLD 164 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- MAZAN Versus THE STATE2005 MLD 147 · Sindh High Court · 2004-10-20Read full judgment →
- Mrs. ROOHI FARNAZ Versus PAKISTAN STEEL MILL CORPORATION2005 MLD 134 · Sindh High Court · 2004-03-03Read full judgment →
- AMEER BUX Versus THE STATE2004 MLD 558 · Sindh High Court · 2003-07-31Read full judgment →
- ROZIE ALMEDIE Versus ASIF ALI2004 MLD 467 · Sindh High Court · 2003-11-05Read full judgment →
- Syed ZAFAR ALI SHAH Versus ASIF JATOI2004 MLD 285 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD IQBAL Versus THE STATE2004 MLD 241 · Sindh High Court · 2003-09-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This bail application arose from criminal proceedings against a bank cashier accused of misappropriating Rs. 1.53 million from a bank branch by manipulating cash packets. The core legal question was whether, given the circumstances and the nature of the bank's internal audit procedures, the applicant was entitled to post-arrest bail pending trial. The High Court observed that while the prosecution alleged the misappropriation occurred over several months, the bank's mandatory annual closing on June 30th—a critical verification point—had not detected any discrepancies, and the prosecution failed to explain this anomaly. Applying the principle of tentative assessment, the Court held that the prosecution's case required further inquiry to determine the applicant's culpability, particularly regarding the oversight of other bank officials. Consequently, the Court granted bail to the applicant, emphasizing that the evidentiary gaps regarding the timing of the alleged fraud and the failure of internal audit mechanisms warranted the applicant's release on bail pending the conclusion of the trial.
Questions settled- Does the failure of a bank to detect alleged misappropriation during its annual June 30th closing provide grounds for further inquiry in a bail application?
- Is an interim challan filed under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 considered a final report for the purposes of bail proceedings?
- Can bail be granted when the prosecution's case relies on evidence that requires further scrutiny at trial?
- MUNAWAR ALI Versus THE STATE2004 MLD 1528 · Sindh High Court · 2003-06-09Read full judgment →
- GHULAM MUSTAFA Versus THE STATE2004 MLD 1468 · Sindh High Court · 1998-06-01Read full judgment →
- BASHIR AHMED Versus THE STATE2004 MLD 1233 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The applicant, Bashir Ahmed, sought post-arrest bail in a murder case pending before the Court of Sessions Judge, Jacobabad, having been in continuous custody for over four years. His previous bail application had been disposed of with a direction to conclude the trial within two months, but no progress was made as prosecution witnesses failed to respond to bailable warrants. The core legal question was whether prolonged incarceration coupled with delayed trial due to non-attendance of prosecution witnesses warranted the grant of bail. The Sindh High Court held that since the trial could not be concluded within the stipulated time and witnesses failed to appear despite coercive processes while the trial court repeatedly issued bailable warrants instead of non-bailable warrants, the applicant was entitled to bail. The court laid down the principle that undue delay in trial owing to the non-appearance of witnesses, resulting in protracted incarceration exceeding four years without foreseeable conclusion, constitutes sufficient ground for granting post-arrest bail.
Questions settled- Whether prolonged incarceration exceeding four years without conclusion of trial entitles an accused charged with murder to post-arrest bail?
- Does failure of prosecution witnesses to respond to bailable warrants justify the issuance of non-bailable warrants by the trial court?
- Whether delayed trial caused by the non-appearance of witnesses constitutes a ground for the grant of bail?
- Haji KHUDA BUX NIZAMANI Versus ELECTION TRIBUNAL2003 MLD 607 · Sindh High Court · 2002-09-16Read full judgment →
- WAZIR Versus THE STATE2003 MLD 1990 · Sindh High Court · 2003-06-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal bail application was filed by the applicant seeking post-arrest bail in a case involving charges under sections 399, 402, 324, and 353 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, arising from an alleged police encounter. The core legal question before the Court was whether the applicant was entitled to bail based on the grounds of ineffective firing, the principle of consistency regarding co-accused who had already been granted bail, and the statutory hardship caused by prolonged pre-trial incarceration. The Court granted bail to the applicant, ruling that the extended period of judicial custody, exceeding two years, constituted a significant hardship warranting relief. The Court further affirmed that consistency in judicial treatment is essential, particularly when co-accused individuals facing identical charges have already been enlarged on bail. Consequently, the applicant was admitted to bail subject to the furnishing of surety. This judgment reinforces the principle that prolonged pre-trial detention, in the absence of specific aggravating factors, serves as a valid ground for the grant of bail in criminal proceedings.
Questions settled- Does prolonged pre-trial incarceration exceeding two years constitute sufficient hardship to warrant the grant of bail?
- Is an applicant entitled to bail on the principle of consistency if co-accused in the same case have already been granted bail?
- Does the absence of injury in a police encounter (ineffective firing) constitute a valid ground for the grant of bail?
- AL-ABID SILK MILLS LIMITED Versus Syed MUHAMMAD MUDASSAR RIZVI2003 MLD 1947 · Sindh High Court · 2002-09-13Read full judgment →
- TAJIRANE MAWESHIYAN WELFARE ASSOCIATION Versus GOVERNMENT OF SINDH2003 MLD 1823 · Sindh High Court · 2003-02-04Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD AMIN Versus THE STATE2003 MLD 1785 · Sindh High Court · 2002-10-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a criminal bail application filed by the accused Muhammad Amin, who was implicated in Crime No.57 of 2001 registered under sections 302 and 504 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Khairpur Nathan Shah. The core legal question concerns whether the applicant is entitled to post-arrest bail in light of conflicting investigation reports, a re-investigation recommending discharge, the medical condition of the accused, and the rule of consistency based on bail granted to a co-accused. The court held that the applicant has made out a case for further inquiry and granted post-arrest bail. The key principles laid down include that conflicting police investigation reports raising serious doubts as to the identification and distance of the occurrence, coupled with documented debilitating illness such as Tuberculosis and the principle of consistency, render the case one of further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, justifying the grant of bail.
Questions settled- Whether conflicting re-investigation reports recommending the accused as innocent make out a case of further inquiry for the grant of bail?
- Does a delayed recording of statements under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 furnish ground for post-arrest bail?
- Whether serious illness such as Tuberculosis constitutes a valid ground for the release of an accused on bail?
- Is an accused entitled to bail on the rule of consistency when a co-accused facing similar allegations has already been admitted to bail?
- MUHAMMAD ASHRAF Versus THE STATE2003 MLD 165 · Sindh High Court · 2002-07-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a bail application filed by the accused, Muhammad Ashraf, facing trial under sections 419, 420, 468, 471, and 109 of the Pakistan Penal Code and sections 3(2)(a)(b), 13, and 14 of the Foreigners Act, 1946, in connection with an FIR registered at Police Station FIA, Passport Cell, Karachi, regarding travel on a suspected forged passport. The core legal question involves whether the accused is entitled to post-arrest bail considering the nature of the offences, the absence of any allegation that the applicant prepared the forged passport, and the fact that the State conceded to the grant of bail. The Sindh High Court held that the case falls within the scope of further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, particularly noting that offences of similar nature under different statutes entail trial under the statute with lesser punishment and that the applicant is no longer required for investigation. Consequently, the Court granted bail to the applicant subject to furnishing security.
Questions settled- Whether an accused charged under different statutes for similar nature offences should be tried under the statute entailing lesser punishment?
- Does the absence of an allegation that the accused prepared a forged passport warrant further inquiry under section 497(2), Cr.P.C.?
- Is an accused entitled to post-arrest bail when the State concedes to the grant of bail and the accused is no longer required for investigation?
- RANO Versus THE STATE2003 MLD 1610 · Sindh High Court · 2003-05-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a bail application filed by the applicants under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, seeking post-arrest bail in a case registered under Sections 302 and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The applicants were accused of murdering Mst. Zainab, based solely on the complainant's suspicion, as the incident was unwitnessed. The core legal question was whether the applicants were entitled to bail given the nature of the evidence and the circumstances of the death. The Court observed that the post-mortem report indicated death by hanging, and the prosecution conceded that the case was unwitnessed and based only on suspicion, with no specific role assigned to the applicants. Holding that the case required further inquiry, the Court granted bail. The key principle established is that where a criminal case is based on suspicion, lacks eyewitnesses, and the cause of death (suicide vs. homicide) remains ambiguous at the pre-trial stage, the case falls within the ambit of 'further inquiry' under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, entitling the accused to bail.
Questions settled- Does a case based solely on suspicion without eyewitnesses warrant further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Is an accused entitled to bail when the cause of death, as indicated by a post-mortem report, remains ambiguous between suicide and homicide?
- NASEER AHMED Versus THE STATE2003 MLD 1407 · Sindh High Court · 2003-04-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The applicant sought post-arrest bail facing trial for an offence under Section 11 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 in F.I.R. No. 236 of 2001. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to bail given the delayed F.I.R., the execution of a Nikahnama, an affidavit sworn by the abductee before a Judicial Magistrate stating she was not abducted, and doubts regarding the voluntariness of her subsequent statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. The court held that the case fell within the scope of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, as the abductee appeared to be a consenting party and the charge of Zina remained to be established at trial. Consequently, the court granted post-arrest bail to the applicant subject to furnishing security, laying down the principle that unexplained delay in F.I.R., a consenting abductee's earlier affidavit of free will, and suspicious circumstances surrounding a later police-custody statement warrant the grant of bail pending trial.
Questions settled- Whether post-arrest bail can be granted under Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when the abductee has sworn an affidavit of free will before a Judicial Magistrate and the question of consent requires further inquiry?
- Does keeping an abductee in police custody for days before recording a statement under Section 164, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 cast doubt on its voluntariness for bail purposes?
- Is an accused entitled to bail when the F.I.R. is delayed by two days without explanation and prima facie evidence suggests the abductee was a consenting party to a marriage?
- SHOUKAT ALI Versus THE STATE2003 MLD 1385 · Sindh High Court · 2003-04-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a post-arrest bail application arising from an offense punishable under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The applicant was allegedly apprehended at the spot by the police shortly after the incident, and identified by the complainant as the person who fired the fatal shot resulting in the death of the deceased. The core legal questions involved whether the discrepancies between the First Information Report and subsequent statements, the medical evidence, and the plea of minority under the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance warranted the grant of bail. The Sindh High Court held that there was prima facie sufficient evidence connecting the applicant to the crime of Qatl-i-Amd, that the medical evidence did not conflict with the ocular testimony, and that the plea of minority was not substantiated at this stage against the Medical Board's report. Consequently, the court dismissed the bail application while directing the trial court to proceed expeditiously.
Questions settled- Whether post-arrest bail can be granted when the accused is apprehended at the spot shortly after the occurrence and identified by eyewitnesses?
- Does a discrepancy between the First Information Report and Section 161 statements regarding the naming of the accused create a case for further inquiry?
- Whether a photostat copy of a school leaving certificate suffices to establish a plea of minority against a contrary opinion of a Medical Board?
- Does medical evidence showing multiple wounds conflict with an ocular account alleging a single shot from a country-made pistol?
- MUHAMMAD HAMID QURESHI Versus THE STATE2003 MLD 1375 · Sindh High Court · 2002-05-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a bail application filed by applicants seeking post-arrest bail in a murder case registered under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the applicants were entitled to bail given that the investigating officer had submitted a report under Section 169 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 recommending their release due to a lack of evidence, despite the trial court previously rejecting that report and proceeding against them. The High Court held that the applicants were entitled to bail. The court reasoned that the First Information Report was delayed, no eye-witnesses were named, no incriminating articles were recovered from the applicants, and both the state counsel and the investigating officer conceded that there was no evidence connecting the applicants to the crime. The key principle laid down is that where the prosecution admits a lack of evidence and the police investigation report recommends release under Section 169, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, there is no justification to withhold the concession of bail, particularly when the trial court's prior rejection of the police report is already sub judice.
Questions settled- Is an accused entitled to bail when the investigating officer has submitted a report under Section 169 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 recommending their release due to a lack of evidence?
- Can a trial court reject a police report submitted under Section 169 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and compel an accused to face trial despite the prosecution's admission of no evidence?
- Does the absence of eye-witnesses and incriminating recovery in a delayed F.I.R. constitute sufficient grounds for the grant of bail?
- SARFARAZ KHAN Versus THE STATE2003 MLD 1343 · Sindh High Court · 2002-01-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a bail application filed by the applicant, Sarfaraz Khan, who was charged under section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotics Substances Act, 1997, following an alleged recovery of 2 kilograms of opium. The core legal question before the Court was whether the applicant was entitled to post-arrest bail given the specific circumstances of his arrest and the alleged prior detention of his family members by the police. The applicant contended that he and his family members were already in police custody prior to the date of the alleged recovery, suggesting the case against him was fabricated. The learned Assistant Advocate General did not oppose the bail application. The Court, upon reviewing the contentions and finding merit in the defense's argument regarding the circumstances of the arrest, held that the applicant's case fell within the scope of further inquiry under subsection (2) of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. Consequently, the Court granted the bail application, subject to the furnishing of a solvent surety.
Questions settled- Does the allegation that an accused was in police custody prior to the date of the alleged recovery of narcotics constitute grounds for further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Can bail be granted in a narcotics case where the prosecution does not oppose the application?
- Syed ARIF ALI Versus Syed FIRDOUS ALI2002 MLD 908 · Sindh High Court · 2001-09-13Read full judgment →
- MST. REHANA BEGUM Versus KARAM HUSSAIN Allah Bachayo Soomro , Anwar Hussain Ansari for A.A. G.2002 MLD 76 · Sindh High Court · 2001-07-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Sessions Judge, Badin, whereby the appellant was convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for life under Ta'zir for the murder of the deceased. The core legal questions involved the reliability of the ocular testimony, the voluntariness and legality of the retracted judicial confession, and the establishment of motive in an unwitnessed crime. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish its case through direct eyewitness accounts, as the primary witnesses turned hostile or provided only hearsay evidence, and the judicial confession suffered from procedural defects, prolonged police custody before recording, and clear retraction by the accused. The Court laid down that where material prosecution witnesses do not support the charge, ocular testimony is lacking, and a judicial confession is fraught with legal infirmities and coercion, the benefit of doubt must be extended to the accused as a matter of right. Consequently, the conviction and sentence were set aside, and the appeal was allowed.
Questions settled- Whether the uncorroborated evidence of witnesses who only heard about the incident or whose testimony amounts to hearsay can form the basis of a murder conviction?
- Can a conviction for Qatal-i-Amd be sustained when the star eyewitness turns hostile and fails to support the prosecution's case?
- Whether a judicial confession recorded without fulfilling mandatory statutory parameters and suffering from delay and police presence is admissible and reliable?
- Is an accused entitled to the benefit of doubt as a matter of right when a single circumstance creates reasonable doubt in a prudent mind regarding the prosecution's case?
- KHAN DIL KHAN CONTRACTOR Versus KARACHI METROPOLITAN CORPORATION2002 MLD 1717 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- QASIM INTERNATIONAL CONTAINERS Versus QASIM FREIGHT STATION (PVT.)2002 MLD 171 · Sindh High Court · 2001-05-31Read full judgment →
- ASGHAR ALI Versus THE STATE2002 MLD 1566 · Sindh High Court · 2002-04-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a criminal bail application filed before the Sindh High Court on behalf of Asghar Ali, seeking post-arrest bail in a case involving an alleged offence of Qatl-i-Amd. The core legal question concerns whether an accused who is under eighteen years of age at the time of the commission of the offence is entitled to bail, considering the statutory provisions regarding minority, Qisas, Diyat, and the prohibition of the death penalty for juveniles. The court held that since the applicant was a minor under the relevant provisions of the Pakistan Penal Code and would not be liable to Qisas but potentially to Diyat, and given that the question of the accused's maturity of mind for the purpose of Ta'zir can only be properly judged by the trial court after evidence, bail is granted. The key principle laid down is that an accused who is a minor below eighteen years of age at the time of the offence is generally entitled to post-arrest bail when the death penalty is barred and the assessment of maturity requires trial evaluation.
Questions settled- Whether an accused under the age of eighteen years is entitled to bail when charged with Qatl-i-Amd?
- Is a minor accused liable to Qisas or Diyat under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Can the question of an accused's sufficient maturity under the second proviso to section 308 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 be determined at the bail stage?
- Haji MUHAMMAD QASSIM Versus 2ND ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE2002 MLD 1363 · Sindh High Court · 2001-10-26Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SALEEM Versus THE STATE2002 MLD 1123 · Sindh High Court · 1999-11-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The applicant, Muhammad Saleem, sought post-arrest bail in a case registered under sections 6 and 9(b) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, for the alleged recovery of 1 kilogram of charas. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to bail given the quantity of the narcotic recovered and the circumstances surrounding his implication. The Sindh High Court held that since the alleged offence was not punishable for more than seven years of rigorous imprisonment, the recovery mashirs were members of the raiding party, and an inquiry was pending regarding the alleged instrumental role of a police officer against the applicant, the case fell within the scope of further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Consequently, the Court granted bail to the applicant subject to furnishing the requisite security. The key principle laid down is that where the recovered quantity attracts a non-prohibitory clause and there are arguable points regarding false implication or defective mashirnamas, the accused makes out a case for further inquiry warranting the grant of bail.
Questions settled- Whether an accused found in possession of 1 kilogram of charas is entitled to post-arrest bail when the offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Does the pendency of an inquiry against a police official allegedly involved in framing the accused bring the case within the scope of further inquiry under section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Can members of a raiding party act as valid mashirs for the recovery of narcotics under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997?
- Mst. ZOHRA Versus NABI BUX2002 MLD 1049 · Sindh High Court · 2002-01-21Read full judgment →
- RAZA ALI Versus THE STATE2001 MLD 916 · Sindh High Court · 2000-10-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal revision application challenges an order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi-East, which transferred a case to the Special Terrorist Activities (S.T.A.) Court. The trial court, after initially framing charges under sections 342 and 364-A of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, subsequently ordered the transfer of the case upon the prosecution's application, asserting the offence fell under section 365-A of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether a trial court, having already taken cognizance and framed charges for specific offences, could transfer a case to a special court solely based on the prosecution's application without recording any evidence to justify such a shift. The High Court held that the trial court's order was defective and premature. The Court ruled that once a charge is framed, it can only be altered or the case transferred if material evidence on record justifies such a change. Consequently, the High Court set aside the impugned order, establishing the principle that a trial court cannot refer a case to a special jurisdiction without first recording evidence to substantiate the necessity for such a transfer.
Questions settled- Can a trial court transfer a case to a special court based solely on the prosecution's application without recording evidence?
- Is it permissible for a trial court to alter a charge or transfer a case after framing charges without material evidence on record?
- Does the mere assertion by the prosecution that an offence falls under a different statute justify the transfer of a case already pending before a Sessions Court?
- NAZ SIDDIQUI Versus KAMRAN SIDDIQUI2001 MLD 879 · Sindh High Court · 1997-11-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition under Section 491, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, sought the recovery and custody of a minor child, with the petitioner alleging illegal detention by the respondent father. The respondent challenged the maintainability of the petition, noting that the petitioner had already initiated custody proceedings under the Guardians and Wards Act 1890, which were pending before the Senior Civil Judge, and that interim visitation orders were already in effect. The Sindh High Court held that the petition was not maintainable. The Court reasoned that habeas corpus proceedings are not a substitute for the specialized jurisdiction of the Guardians and Wards Court, particularly when the parties are already actively litigating custody and visitation rights before a competent civil forum. The Court affirmed that where a trial court is already seized of the matter and has passed interim orders under Section 12 of the Guardians and Wards Act 1890, the High Court will not interfere under its extraordinary jurisdiction. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, directing the parties to pursue their remedies before the appropriate civil court.
Questions settled- Is a petition under Section 491, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, maintainable for child custody when proceedings are already pending before a Guardians and Wards Court?
- Can the High Court exercise jurisdiction under Section 491, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, to override interim custody or visitation orders passed by a competent civil court?
- Does the existence of pending litigation under the Guardians and Wards Act 1890 preclude a party from seeking relief via habeas corpus for the same minor?
- UNITED BANK LIMITED Versus CENTRAL COTTON MILLS LTD.2001 MLD 78 · Sindh High Court · 1997-11-17Read full judgment →
- AMIR NABI ABRO Versus THE STATE2001 MLD 715 · Sindh High Court · 2000-05-31Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns an application for pre-arrest bail filed by the accused, who were charged with the abduction of the complainant's daughter, Mst. Parveen. The core legal question was whether the accused were entitled to pre-arrest bail in light of a subsequent compromise reached between the parties and the exonerating affidavits filed by the complainant and the alleged abductee. The court observed that the parties were close relatives and that community notables had successfully mediated a settlement regarding what appeared to be a matrimonial dispute rather than a criminal abduction. Furthermore, the court noted that the accused were in regular employment and had not been actively pursued by the police. The court held that in these peculiar circumstances, where the alleged abductee denied the occurrence of abduction or rape and the parties had reconciled, the compromise should be respected. Consequently, the court granted pre-arrest bail to the applicants, emphasizing that such community-led settlements should not be discouraged, provided the circumstances warrant such relief in the interest of justice.
Questions settled- Can pre-arrest bail be granted in an abduction case where the complainant and the alleged abductee have filed affidavits exonerating the accused?
- Does a compromise between close relatives in a matrimonial dispute constitute a valid ground for granting pre-arrest bail?
- Should a court consider a compromise reached through community mediation when deciding on a bail application?
- STATE BANK OF PAKISTAN THROUGH BUILDING OFFICER, BANKING CONTROL DEPARTMENT, KARACHI Versus SYED NASEFM MURTAZA JAFRI2001 MLD 651 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- HINA HOUSING PROJECT (P) LTD. Versus GOVERNMENT OF SINDH2001 MLD 59 · Sindh High Court · 2000-09-29Read full judgment →
- QAMBAR ALI Versus THE STATE2001 MLD 358 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- SAHIB KHATOON Versus BAKHSAL2001 MLD 229 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- SHAFQATULLAH KAZI Versus KARIM BUX2001 MLD 215 · Sindh High Court · 2000-09-18Read full judgment →
- M. NASIR J. KHAN Versus SBEHNAZ MIRZA2001 MLD 1893 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- 2001 MLD 16992001 MLD 1699 · Sindh High Court · 1998-11-05Read full judgment →
- HABIB BANK Versus QAYYUM SPINNING LTD.2001 MLD 1351 · Sindh High Court · 2001-02-23Read full judgment →
- WAZIR ALI Versus RENT CONTROLLER NONIII (EAST), CITY COURTS, KARACHI2001 MLD 12 · Sindh High Court · 2000-05-10Read full judgment →
- ANSAR JEHAN JILLANI Versus MEHMOOD ZULQARNAIN JILLANI2001 MLD 1024 · Sindh High Court · 1998-03-18Read full judgment →
- GULZAR HUSSAIN Versus MARIYAM NAZ2000 MLD 447 · Sindh High Court · 1999-10-05Read full judgment →
- YAQOOB Versus STATE2000 MLD 425 · Sindh High Court · 1999-03-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal arose from a conviction by a Special Court under the Suppression of Terrorist Activities Act, where the appellants were sentenced for murder and explosive-related offences. The core legal question was whether the trial court erred by conducting the trial under the pre-1990 provisions of the Pakistan Penal Code, despite the subsequent enactment of the Qisas and Diyat laws. The Court held that the trial was vitiated because it failed to apply the current legal framework governing offences against the human body. Consequently, the conviction and sentence were set aside, and the case was remanded for a fresh trial. The Court laid down the principle that trial courts are under a mandatory duty to strictly follow the current provisions of the Pakistan Penal Code, particularly Sections 300, 302, and 304. Furthermore, courts must specify the relevant subsection of Section 302 under which a conviction is awarded and adhere to the evidentiary standards prescribed by Article 17 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, to avoid miscarriage of justice.
Questions settled- Does a trial conducted under repealed provisions of the Pakistan Penal Code regarding murder vitiate the conviction?
- Is it mandatory for trial courts to specify the relevant subsection of Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code when awarding a conviction?
- What are the requirements for proving Qatl-i-Amd liable to Qisas under Section 304 of the Pakistan Penal Code?
- Must trial courts adhere to the evidentiary standards of Article 17 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, in murder trials?
- FAZAL HUSSAIN Versus MAHMOOD HUSSAIN2000 MLD 1825 · Sindh High Court · 2000-01-14Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD YOUSUF Versus STATE2000 MLD 1697 · Sindh High Court · 2000-02-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a criminal bail application filed by Muhammad Yousuf seeking post-arrest bail in a case involving offenses of murder, attempted murder, rioting, and dacoity arising from an armed clash between law enforcement personnel and members of a political group. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to bail on the grounds of consistency with co-accused who had already been granted bail, and whether he could be classified as an absconder without the initiation of statutory proclamation and attachment proceedings. The Sindh High Court held that since co-accused facing identical allegations were granted bail, the applicant was entitled to the same relief under the rule of consistency. Furthermore, the court found that in the absence of proceedings under Sections 87 and 88 of the Pakistan Penal Code, the applicant could not be termed an absconder, and the unexplained delay in conducting an identification test brought the case within the scope of further inquiry. The court consequently admitted the applicant to bail.
Questions settled- Is an accused person entitled to bail on the rule of consistency when co-accused facing identical allegations have already been granted bail?
- Can an accused be legally termed an absconder when no proceedings under sections 87 and 88 of the Pakistan Penal Code were initiated against him?
- Does an unexplained and belated holding of an identification test make out a case of further inquiry for the grant of bail?
- MUHAMMAD IQBAL Versus STATE Sardar Muhammad Ishaque , Habib Ahmed, Asstt. A-G. (Sindh) for the State1999 MLD 948 · Sindh High Court · 1998-05-12Read full judgment →
- AMIR SULTAN Versus STATE1999 MLD 946 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- GHAFOOR Versus STATE1999 MLD 493 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- ALI AKHAR SHAH Versus STATE1999 MLD 488 · Sindh High Court · 1998-06-03Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD IQBAL Versus STATE1999 MLD 468 · Sindh High Court · 1998-05-12Read full judgment →
- MUSLIM COMMERCIAL BANK LIMITED Versus IRSHAD STEEL1999 MLD 3362 · Sindh High Court · 1998-04-28Read full judgment →
- KHUDA BUX CHANDIO Versus SATTAR1999 MLD 3199 · Sindh High Court · 1998-10-31Read full judgment →
- ALI SHER Versus STATE1999 MLD 2836 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- ABDUL SATTAR Versus THE STATE1999 MLD 2581 · Sindh High Court · 1996-07-08Read full judgment →
- WASEEMUL HAQUE Versus STATE1999 MLD 2382 · Sindh High Court · 1996-07-18Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD AMIN Versus STATE1999 MLD 2177 · Sindh High Court · 1998-06-17Read full judgment →
- SIKANDAR ALI Versus STATE1999 MLD 1513 · Sindh High Court · 1997-12-15Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD ARIF Versus STATE1999 MLD 1321 · Sindh High Court · 1998-04-20Read full judgment →
- ABDUS SALAM BUTT Versus IQBAL RAZZAQ BUTT1998 MLD 90 · Sindh High Court · 1996-11-28Read full judgment →
- ADMINISTRATOR, KARACHI PUBLIC SCHOOL Versus DAWOOD AHMED SALAR1998 MLD 234 · Sindh High Court · 1997-09-19Read full judgment →
- ZULFIQAR Versus STATE1998 MLD 1551 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- WALAYAT BEGUM Versus REVISING AUTHORITY, M.D.A., MIRPUR1998 MLD 1549 · Sindh High Court · 1997-04-01Read full judgment →
- GUL MUHAMMAD Versus KARACHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY1998 MLD 150 · Sindh High Court · 1995-08-07Read full judgment →
- PAKISTAN STATE OIL COMPANY LIMITED Versus SULTAN AHMED1997 MLD 3225 · Sindh High Court · 1997-06-11Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD AYUB Versus STATE1997 MLD 291 · Sindh High Court · 1996-10-08Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM Versus SHAHEEN AKHTAR1997 MLD 2731 · Sindh High Court · 1996-05-23Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD Versus MUHAMMAD UMAR1997 MLD 2499 · Sindh High Court · 1997-03-07Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD INAMUL HAQUE Versus STATE1997 MLD 2458 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- BANK OF CREDIT AND COMMERCE INTERNATIONAL (OVERSEAS) LTD. Versus IRSHAD YOUSUF BHAIMIA1997 MLD 2416 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- KURDISTAN TRADING CORPORATION Versus NATIONAL MOTORS LIMITED1997 MLD 2411 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- VALIBHAI KAMARUDDIN SINDH (PVT.) LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER, KARACHI DIVISION, KARACHI1997 MLD 2290 · Sindh High Court · 1996-10-16Read full judgment →
- TAHIR ALI BHAI Versus NAZ PERWARA1997 MLD 2283 · Sindh High Court · 1995-01-12Read full judgment →
- ANIS-UR-REHMAN Versus SAJEELA BEGUM1997 MLD 2278 · Sindh High Court · 1996-08-04Read full judgment →
- RAFIQ AHMAD Versus SAEED SHAH1997 MLD 2208 · Sindh High Court · 1997-01-06Read full judgment →
- FATIMA BAI SULEMAN Versus PAKISTAN STATE OIL COMPANY LTD., DAWOOD CENTRE, KARACHI1997 MLD 2155 · Sindh High Court · 1996-12-24Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD AFSAR KHAN Versus SAMUNDAR KHAN1997 MLD 2013 · Sindh High Court · 1995-10-17Read full judgment →
- ALI ASBESTOS LTD. Versus BANK OF CREDIT AND COMMERCE1997 MLD 2003 · Sindh High Court · 1995-08-08Read full judgment →
- DAEWOO HONG KONG LIMITED Versus MEHRAN MOTOR CARS COMPANY1997 MLD 1993 · Sindh High Court · 1996-05-26Read full judgment →
- HASAN MAHFOOZ JALISI Versus VICE-CHANCELLOR, UNIVERSITY OF KARACHI1997 MLD 1980 · Sindh High Court · 1996-05-09Read full judgment →
- GHULAM MUHAMMAD Versus STATE1997 MLD 1677 · Sindh High Court · 1996-09-12Read full judgment →
- AMANULLAH Versus STATE1997 MLD 1470 · Sindh High Court · 1996-06-12Read full judgment →
- HABIBULLAH QURESHI Versus FAROOQUE1996 MLD 92 · Sindh High Court · 1995-06-27Read full judgment →
- ALI MUHAMMAD Versus STATE1996 MLD 919 · Sindh High Court · 1995-12-06Read full judgment →
- WAZIR Versus STATE1996 MLD 1862 · Sindh High Court · 1996-05-14Read full judgment →
- BASHIR AHMED Versus STATE1995 MLD 90 · Sindh High Court · 1994-09-25Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD AWAIS SHIBLI Versus STATE1995 MLD 601 · Sindh High Court · 1994-03-19Read full judgment →
- BASHIR AHMED Versus STATE1995 MLD 577 · Sindh High Court · 1994-07-04Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD AWAIS SHIBLI Versus STATE1995 MLD 567 · Sindh High Court · 1994-03-19Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD AWAIS SHIBLI Versus STATE1995 MLD 532 · Sindh High Court · 1994-03-19Read full judgment →
- ALT MUHAMMAD Versus STATE1995 MLD 1407 · Sindh High Court · 1995-04-03Read full judgment →
- SAEED Versus STATE1995 MLD 1158 · Sindh High Court · 1995-02-23Read full judgment →
- GHULAM NABI Versus STATE1994 MLD 867 · Sindh High Court · 1994-01-19Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD IDREES Versus LIAQ AHMED1994 MLD 2414 · Sindh High Court · 1992-11-04Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD RAFIQ & CO. (PVT.) LTD. Versus INTERNATIONAL CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION (PVT.) LTD.1994 MLD 2282 · Sindh High Court · 1994-02-14Read full judgment →