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.

• CH. MUHAMMAD ASHRAF Versus PUNJAB PRIVATIZATION BOARD2002 MLD 550 · Lahore High Court · 2001-09-24Read full judgment →
• ISHAQUE BAIG Versus MST. SUGHRAN2002 MLD 418 · Lahore High Court · 2001-08-08Read full judgment →
• MST. SHARAF ELAHI Versus DEPUTY LAND COMMISSIONER, BAHAWALPUR2002 MLD 31 · Lahore High Court · 2000-11-20Read full judgment →
• COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, MULTAN Versus MUHAMMAD TASLEEM2002 MLD 296 · Lahore High Court · 2001-10-16Read full judgment →
• FAIZ AHMED Versus KHAN MUHAMMAD2002 MLD 1876 · Lahore High Court · 2002-03-14Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ILYAS alias KAKA Versus THE STATE2002 MLD 1638 · Lahore High Court · 2001-02-08
  murderous assaultocular accountmedical corroborationdelayed FIRreappreciation of evidencesentence reduction
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Special Court convicting the appellant under sections 324, 337-D, and 337-F(iii) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for launching a murderous assault using a .222 rifle, resulting in severe injuries to the victim. The core legal questions involved the credibility of the ocular account in the presence of delayed FIR registration, the non-production of certain eye-witnesses, a clerical error in the date mentioned in the charge, and the sufficiency of evidence regarding motive and weapon recovery. The Lahore High Court held that the eyewitness testimony of the injured victim and his brother was natural, reliable, and fully corroborated by medical evidence, and that minor discrepancies or delays sufficiently explained did not vitiate the conviction. The court dismissed the appeal, maintaining the conviction while slightly reducing the substantive sentence from ten years to seven years rigorous imprisonment, extending the benefit of section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.

  Questions settled

  • Does a delay in lodging the first information report vitiate the prosecution case when the delay is adequately explained by the complainant's preoccupation with saving the injured victim's life?
  • Whether the non-production of certain eye-witnesses by the prosecution creates an adverse presumption when the defence fails to summon them as defence witnesses?
  • Does a clerical error regarding the date of occurrence in the charge-sheet prejudice the accused if no objection was raised during the trial and no actual prejudice is demonstrated?
  • Can a conviction for a fire-arm assault be sustained in the absence of crime empties recovered from the spot, provided medical evidence corroborates the use of a fire-arm?
  Read full judgment →
• ZAFAR IQBAL Versus THE STATE2002 MLD 1606 · Lahore High Court · 2001-10-09
  post-arrest bailfurther inquiryconflicting statementsmurdercriminal investigationdoubtful involvement
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a post-arrest bail application filed by the petitioner, Zafar Iqbal, who was charged under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of Muhammad Nazir. The core legal question before the Court was whether the petitioner was entitled to the grant of bail given the conflicting statements made by the complainant regarding the identity of the assailant. Initially, the F.I.R. attributed the fatal shot to the petitioner; however, a subsequent supplementary statement by the complainant identified a co-accused, Nadeem Taimoor, as the person who fired the shot. Furthermore, the police investigation concluded that the petitioner was innocent. The Court held that the contradiction between the initial F.I.R. and the supplementary statement, coupled with the investigation's findings, rendered the petitioner's involvement in the crime doubtful. Consequently, the Court admitted the petitioner to bail. The key principle laid down is that where the prosecution's own case contains material contradictions regarding the identity of the accused, and the investigation finds the accused innocent, the case falls within the scope of further inquiry, justifying the grant of bail under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.

  Questions settled

  • Does a contradiction between the F.I.R. and a subsequent supplementary statement regarding the identity of the assailant create grounds for further inquiry under bail proceedings?
  • Can bail be granted when the police investigation concludes that the accused is innocent?
  • When does a criminal case fall under the scope of Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• MST. ALLAH RAKHI Versus N/SUB. (RETD.) MUHAMMAD IQBAL2002 MLD 145 · Lahore High Court · 2001-06-01Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD YAQUB Versus THE STATE2002 MLD 1449 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• SHAMIM AKHTAR Versus GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB2002 MLD 124 · Lahore High Court · 2001-09-11Read full judgment →
• ALLAH DITTA Versus H AQ NAWAZ Abdul Aziz Mian , Malik Noor Muhammad Awan2002 MLD 118 · Lahore High Court · 2001-09-19Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ALI Versus THE STATE2002 MLD 1126 · Lahore High Court · 2002-02-19
  post-arrest bailmurdersupplementary statementfurther inquirydelayed trial
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a criminal petition filed by Muhammad Ali seeking post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No. 210 registered under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Shalimar, Lahore, for the murder of Shahid Kamran. The core legal question revolves around whether the petitioner is entitled to post-arrest bail where his name was not in the initial F.I.R., was later introduced via a supplementary statement subsequently disowned by the complainant, eye-witnesses were absent from the inquest report, and the trial had not commenced despite a significant lapse of time. The Lahore High Court accepted the petition and held that the petitioner has made out a case for further inquiry, granting him post-arrest bail. The key principle laid down is that where the complainant disowns a supplementary statement implicating an accused whose name was omitted from the initial F.I.R., and where material eye-witnesses are not mentioned in the inquest report and trial is delayed, the case falls within the ambit of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, justifying the grant of bail.

  Questions settled

  • Whether post-arrest bail can be granted when the accused's name does not figure in the initial first information report?
  • Does a complainant's disowning of a supplementary statement implicating the accused provide sufficient ground for bail?
  • Is the absence of eye-witnesses' names from the inquest report a relevant factor for further inquiry under criminal law?
  Read full judgment →
• ALLAH DITTA Versus H AQ NAWAZ2002 MLD 107 · Lahore High Court · 2001-08-06Read full judgment →
• ABDUL HAMEED Versus NASIM AKHTAR2001 MLD 974 · Lahore High Court · 2000-10-30Read full judgment →
• INAYAT ALI Versus GHULAM MUSTAFA2001 MLD 965 · Lahore High Court · 2000-11-01Read full judgment →
• RAMZAN Versus LARA2001 MLD 957 · Lahore High Court · 2000-11-24Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ISHAQ Versus MUSHTAQ AHMED2001 MLD 919 · Lahore High Court · 2001-01-18Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AYYUB & COMPANY Versus MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE, SHEIKHUPURA2001 MLD 912 · Lahore High Court · 2001-02-13Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD HASAN Versus KANEEZ2001 MLD 834 · Lahore High Court · 1999-07-06Read full judgment →
• R.M. GULISTAN Versus DIRECTOR, EXCISE AND TAXATION, RAWALPINDI DIVISION, RAWALPINDI2001 MLD 816 · Lahore High Court · 2000-04-27Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD RASHID Versus KHALID ASGHAR2001 MLD 754 · Lahore High Court · 2000-11-17Read full judgment →
• TANVEER KHAN Versus MUHAMMAD HANIF2001 MLD 75 · Lahore High Court · 2000-04-12Read full judgment →
• MUKHTAR HUSSAIN NAQVI Versus ALI GHAZANFAR RIZVI2001 MLD 748 · Lahore High Court · 2000-11-15Read full judgment →
• TASSADAQ HUSSAIN Versus AFZAL MUMTAZ2001 MLD 740 · Lahore High Court · 2000-11-14Read full judgment →
• BASHIR AHMED Versus THE STATE2001 MLD 695 · Lahore High Court · 1999-06-07
  surety bondforfeiture of bondcriminal revisionproclaimed offenderreduction of penalty
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition arises from an order passed by the trial court under section 514 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, forfeiting the surety bond of the petitioner, Bashir Ahmed, who stood surety for an accused who subsequently absconded and was declared a proclaimed offender. The trial court had directed the petitioner to deposit a penalty of Rs. 25,000 after reducing Rs. 5,000 from the total bond amount of Rs. 30,000. The core legal question concerns the quantum of penalty to be imposed upon a surety for the default of an accused person when the surety acted out of benevolence and the accused left the country without the surety's knowledge. The court held that while the forfeiture of the bond was justified due to the non-production of the accused, the penalty was excessively heavy given the circumstances of the case and the petitioner's poverty. Consequently, the court reduced the penalty amount to Rs. 10,000 to meet the ends of justice, establishing that mitigating circumstances regarding a surety's personal capacity and lack of complicity warrant a reduction in the penalty imposed under section 514 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a trial court can forfeit a surety bond under section 514 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when the accused fails to appear and is declared a proclaimed offender?
  • Can the penalty imposed upon a surety for the non-production of an accused be reduced by the High Court in view of mitigating circumstances such as the surety's poverty and lack of complicity?
  Read full judgment →
• ALLAH RAKHIA Versus GHULAM QADIR2001 MLD 614 · Lahore High Court · 2000-11-15Read full judgment →
• ARIF ALI Versus MUHAMMAD BUTA2001 MLD 591 · Lahore High Court · 2000-10-03Read full judgment →
• MANAGING DIRECTOR, RAVI RAYON LIMITED, KALA SHAH KAKU Versus PROVINCE OF PUNJAB2001 MLD 577 · Lahore High Court · 2000-10-25
  natural justiceright to hearingindustrial relationsspecial law vs general lawadministrative orderconstitutional petitionauditor appointment
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition challenged the validity of Section 23-B(10) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, and an administrative order passed thereunder, on the grounds that they violated the principles of natural justice and the Constitution of Pakistan 1973. The petitioner argued that the statute failed to provide a right of prior hearing and conflicted with the Companies Ordinance, 1984. The Court upheld the constitutionality of Section 23-B(10), ruling that the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, constitutes a special law that prevails over the general provisions of the Companies Ordinance, 1984. However, the Court set aside the impugned administrative order, holding that it was passed without providing the petitioner a personal hearing. The Court established that principles of natural justice, including the right to a fair hearing, must be read into statutory provisions unless the statute expressly excludes them. Additionally, the Court clarified that under Article 203-G of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, it lacks the jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the injunctions of Islam.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969 prevail over the Companies Ordinance 1984 regarding the appointment of an auditor?
  • Can an administrative order be set aside if passed without providing a prior personal hearing to the affected party?
  • Does the High Court have the authority to examine whether a statute violates the injunctions of Islam under Article 203-G of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  • Are principles of natural justice implied in a statute even if not explicitly stated?
  Read full judgment →
• HAKIM ALI Versus SULTAN KHAN2001 MLD 563 · Lahore High Court · 2000-04-26Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ARSHAD Versus MANZOOR AHMAD2001 MLD 56 · Lahore High Court · 1999-09-27Read full judgment →
• REHMAT ALI Versus HASSAN MUHAMMAD2001 MLD 557 · Lahore High Court · 2000-11-17Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD RAMZAN Versus JAN MUHAMMAD2001 MLD 553 · Lahore High Court · 2000-11-24Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD RASHID Versus MEMBER (REVENUE), BOARD OF REVENUE, PUNJAB2001 MLD 548 · Lahore High Court · 2000-10-18Read full judgment →
• MALIK TALKIES DISTRIBUTORS Versus MEHBOOB ELLAHI2001 MLD 539 · Lahore High Court · 2000-11-24Read full judgment →
• KALEEM ULLAH Versus ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE2001 MLD 440 · Lahore High Court · 2000-10-24Read full judgment →
• NASIR Versus HAKIM-UD-DIN, MANAGING DIRECTOR, JAHANGIR ENGINEERING COMPANY, GUJRANWALA2001 MLD 431 · Lahore High Court · 2000-10-27Read full judgment →
• HAMEEDA BEGUM Versus KHADIM HUSSAIN2001 MLD 427 · Lahore High Court · 2000-10-27Read full judgment →
• JAVED LQBAL Versus NAZIRAN BEGUM2001 MLD 416 · Lahore High Court · 2000-09-28Read full judgment →
• KHAN MUHAMMAD Versus MAHMOOD2001 MLD 414 · Lahore High Court · 2000-10-10Read full judgment →
• ABDUL HAYEE Versus WAHID BAKHSH2001 MLD 392 · Lahore High Court · 2000-10-16Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD NAWAZ Versus GHULAM FATIMA2001 MLD 382 · Lahore High Court · 2000-10-17Read full judgment →
• MAQSOOD AHMAD Versus THE STATE2001 MLD 305 · Lahore High Court · 2000-10-26
  post-arrest bailmurderdelayed statementextra-judicial confessionno evidencecriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a criminal petition for bail filed by Maqsood Ahmad against The State, stemming from an FIR registered on 5-11-1994 regarding the murder of Muhammad Javaid. The core legal question concerns whether post-arrest detention is justified based on delayed supplementary statements and an extra-judicial confession recorded six years after the incident, implicating the petitioner differently from the initial FIR. The Lahore High Court held that the case against the petitioner constituted 'no evidence', noting the unexplained six-year silence of the witnesses in making their statements. Consequently, the court accepted the petition and granted bail to the petitioner in the sum of Rs.10,000 with one surety. The key principle laid down is that belated, unexplained supplementary statements and extra-judicial confessions recorded years after the occurrence without plausible justification do not constitute sufficient grounds to deny bail in the absence of credible connecting evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Whether bail can be granted when the case against the accused is based on a statement and extra-judicial confession recorded six years after the occurrence without explanation for the delay?
  • Does an unexplained delay of six years in recording a supplementary statement under section 161, Cr.P.C. weaken the prosecution's case for the purpose of bail?
  Read full judgment →
• SIKANDAR AZIZ Versus SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF INDUSTRIES AND PRODUCTION, GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN, ISLAMABAD2001 MLD 210 · Lahore High Court · 2000-10-09Read full judgment →
• ATTA MUHAMMAD Versus IMTIAZ ALI2001 MLD 2027 · Lahore High Court · 2001-08-17Read full judgment →
• DOST MUHAMMAD Versus MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE2001 MLD 2019 · Lahore High Court · 2001-07-20Read full judgment →
• PUNJAB PROVINCIAL COOPERATIVE BANK Versus ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE2001 MLD 1932 · Lahore High Court · 2001-06-26Read full judgment →
• MALIK HAJI Versus ABDUL RAZAQ2001 MLD 1925 · Lahore High Court · 2000-12-15Read full judgment →
• SAJJAD HUSSAIN Versus ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR-GENERAL, LAHORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, LAHORE2001 MLD 18 · Lahore High Court · 2000-09-21Read full judgment →
• GHAUS BAKHSH Versus THE STATE2001 MLD 1721 · Lahore High Court
  illegal arms possessionrecovery witnessSection 103 CrPCcriminal appealacquittalunnatural recoveryfalse implication
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction and sentence imposed by a Special Judge under the Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Courts) Act, 1975, for the illegal possession of a Kalashnikov under Section 13 of the West Pakistan Arms Ordinance 1965. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had proven the recovery of the weapon beyond reasonable doubt, particularly given the appellant's allegations of false implication due to tribal animosity and the lack of independent witnesses. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution's evidence was unreliable and unnatural. The Court observed that the recovery witnesses were not independent, as they were habitual associates of the investigating officer and belonged to a tribe hostile to the appellant. Furthermore, the Court found the prosecution's narrative—that the accused voluntarily surrendered with the weapon—inherently improbable. Emphasizing the failure to associate independent witnesses from the locality as required by Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, the Court discarded the prosecution's evidence, set aside the conviction, and acquitted the appellant.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure to associate independent witnesses from the locality during a recovery violate the requirements of Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can a conviction be sustained when the prosecution witnesses are habitual associates of the investigating officer and lack independence?
  • Is a prosecution story that an accused voluntarily appeared before police with illegal arms inherently improbable and unreliable?
  Read full judgment →
• WALI MUHAMMAD Versus ZAIB-UN-NISA2001 MLD 1705 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• MAQBOOL AHMAD Versus STATION HOUSE OFFICER, POLICE STATION CITY RAIWIND2001 MLD 1695 · Lahore High Court · 2000-06-19
  illegal detentionhabeas corpuspolice highhandednesspolice tortureDaily Diarycustodial violencewrongful confinement
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition concerns the illegal detention of four individuals by police officials at Police Station City Raiwind. Following a court-ordered raid by a Bailiff, the detenus were discovered in the police lock-up, having been subjected to physical torture, without their arrest being recorded in the Daily Diary or authorization obtained from a competent magistrate. The core legal question was whether the police's justification for the detention—alleged involvement in a criminal case—was valid. The court held that the detention was entirely illegal, characterizing the police's conduct as a severe instance of highhandedness. The court determined that the police’s reliance on a prior FIR was a fabricated afterthought intended to conceal their unlawful actions. Consequently, the court declared the detention illegal, ordered the immediate release of the detenus, and directed the Superintendent of Police to initiate an inquiry and register a case against the responsible officials. The judgment establishes that police stations cannot be used as torture cells and that courts must actively intervene to protect citizens from arbitrary and unlawful police detention.

  Questions settled

  • Is the detention of an accused lawful if the arrest is not recorded in the police Daily Diary?
  • Can police officials justify the detention of citizens by relying on an FIR nomination that appears to be an afterthought?
  • What is the scope of judicial intervention when police stations are used as torture cells?
  Read full judgment →
• ASHFAQ HUSSAIN Versus THE STATE2001 MLD 1685 · Lahore High Court · 2000-11-08
  post-arrest bailcounterfeit currencyfurther inquirybailable offencepolice investigation
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arose from a post-arrest bail petition filed by the petitioner, who was accused under Section 489-B of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for allegedly circulating counterfeit currency notes by mixing them with the salaries of police employees. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail where the recovery of counterfeit currency notes prima facie constituted a bailable offence under Section 489-C of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, and where the investigation into the source and purchase of the counterfeit currency under Section 489-B remained incomplete. The Lahore High Court held that while a prima facie case under Section 489-B was made out, the police had failed to conduct further investigation to ascertain the source of the counterfeit currency or identify who purchased it from Peshawar. Consequently, the Court granted bail to the petitioner subject to furnishing bail bonds. The key principle laid down is that where critical elements of an investigation under a non-bailable offence remain uninvestigated and unresolved, the accused may be granted the concession of bail.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the recovery of counterfeit currency notes primarily constitutes a bailable offence under Section 489-C of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Can post-arrest bail be granted in a case under Section 489-B of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 if the police fail to investigate the source or purchaser of the counterfeit currency?
  Read full judgment →
• TAHIR ASLAM KHAN Versus MERAJ DIN2001 MLD 1633 · Lahore High Court · 2000-10-02Read full judgment →
• ABDUL KAREEM Versus NOOR BEGUM2001 MLD 1603 · Lahore High Court · 2001-04-03Read full judgment →
• AAMIR MASOOD Versus KHURSHID BEGUM2001 MLD 159 · Lahore High Court · 2000-05-25Read full judgment →
• SHAH MUHAMMAD Versus MUHAMMAD ISHAQ2001 MLD 1518 · Lahore High Court · 2001-02-22Read full judgment →
• SHARAFAT ALI Versus DEPUTY COMMISSIONER/COLLECTOR, KASUR2001 MLD 1502 · Lahore High Court · 2001-03-27Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD YAQUB Versus RANG ILLAHI2001 MLD 1479 · Lahore High Court · 2001-02-23Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AZEEM Versus NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN2001 MLD 135 · Lahore High Court · 2000-07-27Read full judgment →
• SULTAN AHMAD KHAN Versus GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB2001 MLD 1013 · Lahore High Court · 2001-01-19Read full judgment →
• Mst. AZRA BIBI Versus MUHAMMAD ASLAM2000 MLD 825 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD RAMZAN Versus STATE2000 MLD 734 · Lahore High Court · 1999-08-04
  murder in jailcapital punishmentmitigating circumstanceslife convictocular accountmotivecriminal appealdeath sentence confirmation
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal and connected murder reference arise from a judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Sahiwal, convicting the appellant, Muhammad Ramzan, under section 302(a) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of a fellow prisoner inside Central Jail, Sahiwal, and sentencing him to death as Qisas along with compensation under section 544-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The core legal questions involved whether the prosecution successfully proved the charge and motive beyond a reasonable doubt, and whether mitigating circumstances existed to warrant a reduction of the death sentence to imprisonment for life, particularly given that the murder was committed by a life-convict inside a correctional facility. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution fully established the ocular account, motive, and recovery of the weapon, and that the appellant, being a desperate criminal already serving a life sentence, failed to demonstrate any mitigating factor or sudden provocation. The court dismissed the appeal, upheld the conviction, and maintained the death sentence by converting it from Qisas to Ta'zir due to procedural requirements, while modifying the default sentence for compensation.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the unprovoked murder of a fellow inmate by a life-convict within the premises of a jail warrants the confirmation of the death sentence?
  • Does the failure of the accused to establish a compromise regarding previous enmity leave the prosecution's motive intact and corroborated?
  • Whether the absence of evidence regarding the exact origin of a fight inside a prison automatically entitles the accused to a reduction of the death sentence to imprisonment for life?
  Read full judgment →
• BEGUM BIBI Versus MUHAMMAD ISHAQ2000 MLD 491 · Lahore High Court · 1999-07-29Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM Versus STATE2000 MLD 434 · Lahore High Court · 1999-06-03
  criminal appealmisappropriationanti-corruptionstatement of accusedincriminating evidenceremand of casefair trial
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment and conviction of the appellant under Section 409 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 by the Special Court, Anti-Corruption, Faisalabad, sentencing him to three years' rigorous imprisonment with a fine. The core legal question was 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 caused prejudice to the defense. The Lahore High Court held that omitting to put incriminating evidence to the accused under Section 342, Cr.P.C. caused material prejudice, rendering the trial flawed. Consequently, the court accepted the appeal, set aside the conviction, and remanded the matter back to the trial court to properly record the statement of the appellant under Section 342, Cr.P.C. by putting all incriminating circumstances to him before deciding the case afresh on merits, laying down the principle that mandatory examination of an accused regarding incriminating evidence is essential to a fair trial.

  Questions settled

  • Whether failure to put incriminating evidence to an accused in his statement under section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 causes prejudice to the accused?
  • Can a criminal case be remanded back to the trial court for recording a proper statement under section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is it a legal obligation for the trial court to put all incriminating prosecution evidence to the accused during examination under section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• MUNIR AHMAD Versus STATE2000 MLD 374 · Lahore High Court · 1998-05-28
  post-arrest bailrule of consistencyfurther inquiryZina OrdinanceNikahnamacriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a post-arrest bail petition filed by the petitioner, Munir Ahmad, who was charged under Section 10(2) of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979, along with Sections 420, 468, 471, 494, and 495 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioner was accused of abducting the complainant's wife and fabricating a Nikahnama. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the conflicting evidence regarding the validity of the Nikahnamas, the completion of the police investigation, and the principle of consistency regarding co-accused who had already been granted bail. The Court held that the petitioner was entitled to bail, determining that the case required further inquiry. This decision was based on the fact that the investigation was complete, no further recovery was required from the petitioner, and the Finger Print Bureau's report indicated that the signatures on both competing Nikahnamas belonged to the same woman. Furthermore, the Court applied the rule of consistency, noting that co-accused had already been granted bail, thereby entitling the petitioner to similar relief.

  Questions settled

  • Does the completion of a police investigation and the lack of need for further recovery from an accused constitute grounds for granting bail?
  • Is an accused entitled to bail on the rule of consistency if co-accused have already been granted bail?
  • Does the existence of conflicting evidence regarding the validity of a Nikahnama make a case one of further inquiry for the purpose of bail?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SALEEM Versus DEPUTY DIRECTOR, FIA/CBC, MULTAN2000 MLD 357 · Lahore High Court · 1999-07-22Read full judgment →
• NAZIR AHMAD Versus COMMISSIONER, LAHORE DIVISION, LAHORE2000 MLD 322 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• ANJUMAN COOPERATIVE SOCIETY Versus DEPUTY REGISTRAR, COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES, BAHAWALPUR2000 MLD 292 · Lahore High Court · 1999-08-24Read full judgment →
• NOOR MUHAMMAD Versus MUHAMMAD ISHAQ2000 MLD 251 · Lahore High Court · 1999-05-17Read full judgment →
• SAEED IQBAL BHATTI Versus STATE2000 MLD 2023 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD NAWAZ KHAN Versus MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE2000 MLD 191 · Lahore High Court · 1999-06-10Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AFZAL Versus MUHAMMAD TUFAIL2000 MLD 1858 · Lahore High Court · 2000-03-29Read full judgment →
• NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN Versus GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN2000 MLD 1821 · Lahore High Court · 2000-03-07Read full judgment →
• FARIDA SAJID Versus MUHAMMAD BAQIR ALI SHAH2000 MLD 1729 · Lahore High Court · 2000-05-01Read full judgment →
• AMIR-UD-DIN Versus MEMBER (REVENUE); BOARD OF REVENUE, PUNJAB, LAHORE2000 MLD 1349 · Lahore High Court · 1999-06-30Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SHARIF Versus STATE1999 MLD 942 · Lahore High Court · 1996-06-12Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ASLAM Versus STATE1999 MLD 931 · Lahore High Court · 1998-05-18Read full judgment →
• WARYAM Versus STATE1999 MLD 914 · Lahore High Court · 1998-03-17Read full judgment →
• RAB NAWAZ Versus STATE1999 MLD 85 · Lahore High Court · 1998-07-13Read full judgment →
• ALLAH DITTA Versus STATE1999 MLD 849 · Lahore High Court · 1998-05-19Read full judgment →
• ANJUM SHERAZ Versus STATE1999 MLD 844 · Lahore High Court · 1998-05-21Read full judgment →
• SHAUKAT ALI Versus STATE1999 MLD 708 · Lahore High Court · 1998-05-19Read full judgment →
• ASHIQ HUSSAIN Versus STATE1999 MLD 7 · Lahore High Court · 1998-06-08Read full judgment →
• NOOR MUHAMMAD, Versus STATE1999 MLD 60 · Lahore High Court · 1998-08-27Read full judgment →
• ASGHAR ALI Versus STATE1999 MLD 562 · Lahore High Court · 1998-06-18Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD BASHARAT Versus STATE1999 MLD 449 · Lahore High Court · 1997-04-29Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD KHAN Versus STATE1999 MLD 441 · Lahore High Court · 1998-06-11Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AMIN Versus STATE1999 MLD 428 · Lahore High Court · 1997-07-30Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD RAMZAN Versus STATE1999 MLD 400 · Lahore High Court · 1997-07-28Read full judgment →
• KHALID MEHMOOD Versus STATE1999 MLD 356 · Lahore High Court · 1997-07-31Read full judgment →
• M.D. TAHIR, ADVOCATE Versus FEDERAL GOVERNMENT1999 MLD 3431 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• MUKHTAR BIBI Versus STATE1999 MLD 3344 · Lahore High Court · 1998-05-14Read full judgment →
• SIRAJ DIN Versus STATE1999 MLD 3337 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ASHRAF Versus STATE1999 MLD 3324 · Lahore High Court · 1998-06-09Read full judgment →
• MUHATRTMAD SALIM Versus STATE1999 MLD 3009 · Lahore High Court · 1999-02-15Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AFZAL Versus STATE1999 MLD 2445 · Lahore High Court · 1996-08-18Read full judgment →
• LIAQAT ALI Versus STATE1999 MLD 2215 · Lahore High Court · 1998-09-15Read full judgment →
• ABDUL QAYYUM Versus STATE1999 MLD 2026 · Lahore High Court · 1998-11-04Read full judgment →
• NOOR MUHAMMAD Versus STATE1999 MLD 1986 · Lahore High Court · 1998-11-03Read full judgment →
• LIAQAC ALI Versus STATE1999 MLD 1974 · Lahore High Court · 1998-11-02Read full judgment →