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.

• HAREER ASHRAF Versus State2019 PCrLJN 127 · Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court · 2019-05-10
  post-arrest bailblasphemySection 295-Cheinous offenseprima facie caseJoint Investigation Teamcriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by an accused charged under Section 295-C of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for allegedly uttering derogatory remarks against the Holy Prophet. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the arguments regarding an unexplained delay in the FIR, the lack of authorization for the complainant, and the petitioner's claim of lacking criminal intent. The Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court dismissed the bail petition, holding that a prima facie case existed against the petitioner based on the statements of two eyewitnesses. The court accepted the prosecution's explanation that the delay in lodging the FIR was necessary to facilitate a transparent investigation conducted by a Joint Investigation Team. The court further determined that the offense was heinous in nature and that the evidence presented was sufficient to establish the petitioner's involvement. Consequently, the court affirmed that the petitioner was not entitled to the concession of bail, emphasizing the gravity of the allegations and the sufficiency of the prosecution's evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Does a delay in lodging an FIR automatically invalidate the prosecution's case in a charge under Section 295-C of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Is an accused entitled to bail as a matter of right when charged with a heinous offense under Section 295-C of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Can the court refuse bail when a prima facie case is established through eyewitness statements and investigation findings?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ZAMRUD Versus State2019 PCrLJN 121 · Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court · 2019-04-29
  NAB investigationprotective bailrestraining ordercorruption inquirycustodial interrogationcooperation with investigation
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns three petitions seeking protection from arrest by the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) in connection with an investigation into alleged financial loss to the Government Exchequer caused by an assessment team. The petitioners, who had previously been granted bail or restraining orders in related proceedings, sought to prevent their arrest, arguing they were not involved in corruption and had been exonerated in prior inquiries. The NAB opposed the petitions, contending that the petitioners caused significant financial loss and that their physical custody was necessary for the procurement of material evidence. The Court held that, given the petitioners had previously been admitted to post-arrest bail on the same charges, their re-arrest would not serve the interests of justice. Accordingly, the Court confirmed the restraining orders against the petitioners' arrest. The holding establishes that where an accused has previously been granted bail on specific charges, subsequent arrest on the same charges is not warranted, provided the accused cooperates with the investigating agency and complies with directions to provide evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an accused person who has previously been granted bail on specific charges can be arrested again by the National Accountability Bureau on the same charges?
  • Does the failure of an assessment team to conduct a proper assessment, resulting in financial loss, automatically justify the arrest of its members by the National Accountability Bureau?
  • Can a court confirm a restraining order against arrest while mandating the accused's cooperation and appearance before the investigating agency?
  Read full judgment →
• EJAZ HUSSAIN Versus State2019 PCrLJN 119 · Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court · 2019-04-23
  post-arrest bailinculpatory statementco-accused statementplea of alibicircumstantial evidencerecoverycriminal trial
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by the petitioner, who was implicated in a criminal case involving offences under sections 302, 380, 457, 34, and 75 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, following an investigation where he was not initially nominated in the FIR. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail despite incriminating evidence, including a recovery made on his pointation and an inculpatory statement by a co-accused. The petitioner argued mala fides, lack of evidence, and an alibi. The Court held that the petitioner was not entitled to bail, noting that the recovery of an iron bar allegedly used in the crime, coupled with the co-accused's judicial confession under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, constituted sufficient incriminating evidence. Furthermore, the Court established that a co-accused's statement can be used as circumstantial evidence under Article 43 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat 1984, and that a plea of alibi not raised during investigation cannot be considered at the bail stage without cogent proof.

  Questions settled

  • Can a plea of alibi be considered at the bail stage if it was not raised during the investigation?
  • Can the statement of a co-accused recorded under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 be used as circumstantial evidence against an accused?
  • Does the recovery of an incriminating object on the pointation of an accused constitute sufficient grounds to deny post-arrest bail?
  Read full judgment →
• WALI UR REHMAN Versus State2019 PCrLJN 113 · Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court · 2019-03-26
  post-arrest bailfurther inquirymurderunnamed in FIRovert actweapon recoveryvicarious liability
  Summary & questions settled

  This post-arrest bail petition arose out of FIR No. 11/2017 registered under Sections 302, 324, 109, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code at Police Station Goharabad, involving an armed night assault inside a residential house resulting in one death and multiple injuries. The primary legal issue was whether the petitioners were entitled to bail on grounds of being nominated belatedly through supplementary witness statements rather than the FIR, and whether their individual roles warranted release under the rule of further inquiry. The Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court observed that while non-recovery of weapons is not decisive in heinous crimes, the natural witnesses did not immediately inform the complainant living in the same house. Furthermore, no overt act was attributed to co-accused Nosherwan and Gohar Rehman, placing their culpability within the scope of further inquiry. Consequently, the Court granted bail to Nosherwan and Gohar Rehman subject to furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 1,000,000 with two sureties, while dismissing the bail petition of Wali ur Rehman.

  Questions settled

  • Does the non-recovery of an alleged weapon of offence alone justify the grant of bail in cases involving heinous offences?
  • Whether an accused unnamed in the FIR and not assigned an overt act by eye-witnesses is entitled to post-arrest bail on the ground of further inquiry?
  • What is the effect on the prosecution case at the bail stage when natural eye-witnesses fail to immediately disclose the names of the assailants to the complainant residing in the same premises?
  Read full judgment →
• MIR ALAM Versus State2019 PCrLJN 103 · Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court · 2019-02-07
  post-arrest bailabetmentmurderfurther inquirybail refusal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from two criminal miscellaneous petitions seeking post-arrest bail filed by petitioners Mir Alam and Sher Afzal, who were charged with the abetment of the murder of deceased Rahimullah and related offences. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to the concession of bail given the nature of the allegations, the lack of recovery of the advance amount, and the applicability of further inquiry. The Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court held that a prima facie case existed against both petitioners, noting that the murder was committed in a brutal manner with their active connivance, and that the offence of abetment under section 109 entails the same punishment as the main offence. Consequently, the court declined the bail petitions of both accused. The key principle laid down is that where an accused is charged with abetment in a brutal murder and prima facie evidence connects them to the crime, bail may be refused.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an accused charged with abetment of murder is entitled to post-arrest bail when a prima facie case connects him to the offence?
  • Does the offence of abetment under Section 109 entail the same punishment as the main offence for the purpose of considering bail?
  • Can bail be granted under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure when the accused is alleged to have acted in active connivance in a brutal murder?
  Read full judgment →
• REHMAT GHANI Versus State2018 PCrLJN 98 · Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court · 2017-05-02
  post-arrest bailnarcotics possessionprohibitory clausehabitual offendercharas recoverygrant of bail
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a post-arrest bail petition filed by the petitioner, Rehmat Ghani, who was charged under Articles 3 and 4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979, following the recovery of 1038 grams of charas. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to the concession of bail given the nature of the alleged offence and the prosecution's contention that the petitioner was a habitual offender. The Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court held that the offences charged under Articles 3 and 4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979, do not fall within the prohibitory clauses of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. Consequently, the Court granted bail to the petitioner. The key principle laid down is that where an offence does not fall within the prohibitory clauses of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, the grant of bail is the rule and refusal is an exception. Furthermore, the mere registration of a prior FIR, without a final adjudication, is insufficient grounds to deny bail.

  Questions settled

  • Do offences under Articles 3 and 4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979, fall within the prohibitory clauses of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898?
  • Is the mere registration of a prior FIR sufficient grounds to refuse bail when the earlier case is still pending?
  • What is the general rule regarding the grant of bail for offences that do not fall within the prohibitory clauses of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• MAQBOOL ALAM Versus State2018 PCrLJN 89 · Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court · 2017-04-03
  post-arrest bailtrial delaywitness attendancejudicial disciplinecriminal procedureGilgit-Baltistan judiciaryheinous offence
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a post-arrest bail petition filed by the petitioner, who was charged under sections 324, 34, and 114 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal questions were whether the petitioner was entitled to bail due to the prolonged non-appearance of prosecution witnesses and whether the trial court failed to adhere to binding procedural directives regarding the enforcement of witness attendance. The Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court dismissed the petition, holding that the offence was heinous and that no fresh grounds for bail were established. While the Court upheld the refusal of bail, it severely criticized the trial court for its lethargic attitude and failure to enforce witness attendance as mandated by prior binding directives. The Court laid down the principle that under Article 73 of the Gilgit-Baltistan (Empowerment and Self Governance) Order, 2009, decisions of the Chief Court on questions of law are strictly binding on subordinate courts, and trial judges have a statutory duty to utilize the mechanisms in the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to secure witness attendance.

  Questions settled

  • Are decisions of the Chief Court binding on subordinate courts regarding questions of law under the Gilgit-Baltistan (Empowerment and Self Governance) Order, 2009?
  • Does the failure of prosecution witnesses to appear in court automatically entitle an accused to the concession of bail?
  • What is the legal obligation of trial courts to ensure the attendance of witnesses under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• KHUSH AMDEEN Versus State2018 PCrLJN 85 · Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court · 2017-03-29
  post-arrest bailnarcoticscharasborderline casepolice jurisdictioninvestigation irregularity
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for post-arrest bail was filed by the accused, who was arrested during a police nakabandi after 1130 grams of charas was recovered from his vehicle. The petitioner argued that the local police lacked jurisdiction to register the FIR under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997, as only the Anti-Narcotics Force was competent to do so, and that the quantity of narcotics recovered placed the matter on the borderline between Section 9(b) and Section 9(c) of the Act. The Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court observed that any irregularity in the investigation by the local police is protected under Section 156(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. However, the Court accepted the petitioner's argument that the recovery of 1130 grams of charas constituted a borderline case between Section 9(b) and Section 9(c) of the Act. Consequently, the Court granted post-arrest bail to the petitioner, establishing that in borderline narcotic quantity cases, the courts lean in favor of granting bail.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an irregularity in the investigation or registration of an FIR by local police instead of a specialized agency invalidates the proceedings in view of Section 156(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Whether a recovery of 1130 grams of charas qualifies as a borderline case between Section 9(b) and Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 for the purpose of granting bail?
  • Does the court lean in favor of granting bail when the quantity of recovered narcotics falls on the borderline between two penal provisions of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997?
  Read full judgment →
• KHUSH BAR Versus State2018 PCrLJN 63 · Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court · 2017-04-18
  criminal appealabscondenceeye-witness testimonymurderlurking house trespasscorroborative evidencenon-recovery of weapon
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction of the appellant for the murder of a couple and lurking house trespass at night. The core legal questions concerned the reliability of eye-witness testimony regarding a night-time occurrence, the evidentiary value of the appellant’s long-term abscondence, and the impact of the non-recovery of the weapon of offense on the prosecution's case. The Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the trial court’s judgment. The Court held that the eye-witnesses were natural and their testimony, despite minor contradictions, was confidence-inspiring. Crucially, the Court established that while abscondence alone is insufficient for conviction, it serves as a strong piece of corroborative evidence when paired with direct ocular testimony. Furthermore, the Court ruled that an accused cannot seek a benefit from the non-recovery of a weapon if their own status as a fugitive from justice prevented the police from conducting a timely investigation and recovery. Consequently, the conviction and sentences imposed by the trial court were maintained, emphasizing that the appellant's conduct in evading law for eleven years significantly weighed against him.

  Questions settled

  • Does the non-recovery of a weapon of offense entitle an accused to acquittal when the accused has remained a fugitive from justice?
  • Can a conviction be sustained based on eye-witness testimony that contains minor contradictions?
  • Is abscondence sufficient, by itself, to sustain a criminal conviction?
  • What is the evidentiary value of an accused's prolonged abscondence when considered alongside direct ocular evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• State Versus BULBUL AMAN SHAH2018 PCrLJN 57 · Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court · 2017-03-20
  criminal appeal against acquittalmurderabscondenceeyewitness testimonyforensic evidenceappetite interferencere-appraisal of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal was filed by the State and the complainant against the judgment of the Sessions Judge Ghizar, whereby the respondent-accused was acquitted of murder charges. The core legal question was whether the trial court's acquittal judgment suffered from misreading and non-reading of evidence, warranting interference by the appellate court. The Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court held that the trial court's acquittal was perverse, arbitrary, and based on untenable grounds, as the prosecution successfully established its case through consistent eyewitness testimony, medical evidence, recovery of the weapon, and a positive forensic report, alongside the accused's long and unexplained abscondence. The appellate court set aside the acquittal, accepted the appeal, and convicted the accused under the Pakistan Penal Code and Arms Ordinance, sentencing him to death and imprisonment. The key principle laid down is that an appellate court can interfere with and reverse an acquittal judgment when it is found to be perverse, arbitrary, or the result of a gross misreading or non-reading of evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Under what circumstances can an appellate court interfere with and reverse a judgment of acquittal?
  • Does long and unexplained abscondence of an accused serve as a strong piece of corroborative evidence?
  • Can minor contradictions in the statements of prosecution witnesses justify the outright rejection of a credible prosecution case?
  • Is a trial court's acquittal judgment sustainable when it ignores material evidence such as positive forensic reports and eyewitness accounts?
  Read full judgment →
• State Versus MUHAMMAD SAJJAD2018 PCrLJN 216 · Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court · 2018-04-25
  criminal appealacquittalcontradictory statementsrecovery of stolen propertysuperdariappellate jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Sessions Judge Hunza whereby the respondent was acquitted of the charges. The core legal question was whether the appellate court was justified in setting aside the conviction based on contradictions in prosecution evidence. The Court held that the judgment of the appellate court acquitting the accused was maintainable as the prosecution witnesses contradicted each other and failed to support the recovery of stolen property or nominate the accused in court. The key principle laid down is that an acquittal based on a thorough and correct appreciation of material contradictions and a lack of incriminating evidence by prosecution witnesses will not be interfered with unless found to be perverse or arbitrary.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an appellate court is justified in setting aside a conviction when prosecution witnesses make self-contradictory statements?
  • Can an order of acquittal be interfered with if the trial court's evaluation of evidence is found to be neither perverse nor arbitrary?
  • How should recovered case property be dealt with when neither party establishes a lawful claim to it?
  Read full judgment →
• Mir NISAR HASSNAIN RAMAL Versus State2018 PCrLJN 187 · Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court · 2018-05-31
  post-arrest bailanti-terrorismstatutory delaySchedule IVprohibitory clauseWhatsApp messages
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a post-arrest bail petition filed before the Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court, where the petitioner sought bail in a case registered under sections 123-A, 124-A, 153 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and section 11-E(4) of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997. The core legal questions involved whether the mandatory timeframes for investigation and conclusion of trial under the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997 were violated, and whether the alleged WhatsApp messages attributed to the petitioner prima facie constituted offences under the invoked sections. The court held that the prosecution failed to complete the investigation and trial within the mandatory statutory periods prescribed by the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997, that indefinite detention is impermissible, and that the contents of the messages did not prima facie attract the penal sections. Consequently, the bail petition was allowed and the petitioner was admitted to post-arrest bail. The key principles laid down include that violation of mandatory statutory timelines for trial under anti-terrorism laws can constitute grounds for post-arrest bail, and an accused cannot be incarcerated indefinitely when the conclusion of trial is unlikely in the near future.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure of the trial court to conclude a trial within the mandatory timeframe prescribed under the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997 entitle the accused to post-arrest bail?
  • Can an accused be kept in indefinite detention when there is no probability of the trial concluding in the near future?
  • Whether placement of a person's name in Schedule IV of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997 without being a member of a proscribed organization is a ground for denying bail?
  Read full judgment →
• NASEEM ULLAH Versus State2018 PCrLJN 156 · Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court
  post-arrest bailattempted murderprohibitory clauserecovery of weaponcriminal bailjudicial discretion
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by the petitioner, Naseem Ullah, who is accused of attempting to murder his sister by firing shots at her with a .30 bore pistol, an incident resulting in injuries to the victim and the petitioner himself. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to the concession of post-arrest bail given the nature of the allegations and the evidence available. The Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court held that the petitioner was not entitled to bail. The court observed that the offence fell within the prohibitory clauses of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, noting that the weapon of offence was recovered from the petitioner's possession and the victim remained in protective custody at Dar-ul-Aman due to fear for her life. The court affirmed the trial court's decision to refuse bail, concluding that the petition was meritless. The key principle laid down is that where an offence falls within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and there is incriminating evidence such as the recovery of the weapon of offence, the accused does not deserve the concession of bail.

  Questions settled

  • Does an offence falling within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, automatically disentitle an accused to the concession of bail?
  • Is the recovery of the weapon of offence a relevant factor for the court to consider when deciding a post-arrest bail application?
  Read full judgment →
• WAQAR AHMED Versus State2018 PCrLJN 150 · Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court · 2017-06-24
  post-arrest bailfurther inquirytentative assessmentconflicting statementsprohibitory clausecriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a post-arrest bail petition filed under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 in respect of an FIR registered under Sections 302, 324, 337-F(v), 452, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Juglot, District Gilgit. The core legal question revolves around whether the petitioners are entitled to the concession of bail considering the tentative assessment of the material, conflicting statements of witnesses, and the nature of injuries sustained. The Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court held that the case of two petitioners was distinguishable from the principal accused, as injuries attributed to them were on non-vital parts and not declared dangerous to life, whereas a prima facie case existed against the principal accused who was directly charged with murder and from whom the weapon of offence was recovered. The court laid down the principle that while deeper appreciation of evidence is barred at the bail stage, a tentative assessment of material, including inconsistent statements of eyewitnesses and the medical report regarding non-vital injuries, warrants the grant of post-arrest bail to co-accused whose cases fall under further inquiry, while declining the same to the principal offender.

  Questions settled

  • Whether contradictory statements of an eyewitness recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 make a case one of further inquiry under Section 497(2)?
  • Can bail be granted to co-accusssed when injuries attributed to them are on non-vital parts of the body and not declared dangerous to life?
  • Does the recovery of the weapon of offence from the principal accused disentitle him to the concession of post-arrest bail?
  Read full judgment →
• NASIR IQBAL Versus State2018 PCrLJN 143 · Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court · 2017-03-20
  murdercapital punishmentenhancement of sentencesolitary eye-witnessforensic matchmitigating circumstancesvoluntary surrenderfirearm recovery
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal and revision petition arose from a judgment by the Sessions Judge Gilgit convicting the appellant, Nasir Iqbal, for the murder of one Anas under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, sentencing him to life imprisonment, along with a separate conviction under Section 13 of the Arms Ordinance. The core legal questions involved whether the prosecution successfully established the guilt of the accused through a solitary eye-witness and corroborating forensic evidence, and whether the trial court erred in treating youth and lack of criminal history as mitigating circumstances to award life imprisonment instead of the death penalty. The Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court held that the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt through the consistent statement of the eye-witness, medical evidence, and a positive forensic match between the recovered weapon and crime empties. The court ruled that youth and absence of previous convictions do not constitute mitigating circumstances to reduce the death penalty in brutal murder cases, and consequently dismissed the convict's appeal while accepting the State's revision, enhancing the sentence from life imprisonment to death.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction on a capital charge be based solely on the testimony of a single eye-witness?
  • Whether youth and the absence of a prior criminal record constitute valid mitigating circumstances for awarding a lesser sentence of life imprisonment instead of death in a murder case?
  • Does the recovery of a weapon and its positive matching with crime empties provide sufficient corroboration in a murder trial?
  • Whether a defect in conducting an identification parade vitiates the entire prosecution case when other independent and corroborative evidence is available?
  Read full judgment →
• NADEEM SHAH Versus State2018 PCrLJN 139 · Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court · 2017-03-07
  transfer of caseanti-terrorism courtjurisdictionordinary crimesmala fidesexplosive substancecriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a petition filed under Section 526 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 read with Section 23-A of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, seeking the transfer of a criminal case from the Anti-Terrorism Court Gilgit to an ordinary court. The core legal question was whether the offences allegedly committed by the petitioners, which included possession of a weapon and negligible explosive material, amounted to terrorism as defined under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997. The court held that the occurrence was of an ordinary nature without any element or design of terrorism, and the police acted malafidely in submitting the challan before the Anti-Terrorism Court. Consequently, the petition was allowed, the Anti-Terrorism Court's order was set aside, and the case was ordered to be transferred to an ordinary court for trial. The court laid down the principle that Anti-Terrorism Courts are meant exclusively for special cases involving terrorism, and giving an ordinary case the colour of terrorism displays mala fides and incompetence on the part of the police.

  Questions settled

  • Whether mere recovery of an ordinary weapon and negligible explosive material without any terrorist intent attracts the provisions of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997?
  • Can an ordinary criminal case investigated by the police be tried by an Anti-Terrorism Court?
  • What is the remedy when a case of ordinary nature is malafidely submitted before an Anti-Terrorism Court?
  Read full judgment →
• ISLAM-UD-DIN Versus State2018 PCrLJN 103 · Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court · 2017-05-22
  post-arrest bailnarcoticsprohibitory clauserecovery from vehicleSection 103 CrPCbail as rule
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought post-arrest bail in a narcotics case involving the recovery of 10 grams of charas from his person and 700 grams from a location identified by him, registered under the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979. The petitioner's bail applications were previously rejected by the Judicial Magistrate and the Sessions Judge. Before the Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court, the petitioner argued that the alleged offences did not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and that the mandatory provisions of Section 103, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 regarding recovery were violated. The Court held that while Section 103, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 is not applicable to recoveries made from vehicles during surprise checks, the petitioner's argument regarding the prohibitory clause was valid. The Court affirmed that bail is the rule and refusal is an exception for offences carrying less than ten years' imprisonment, and as no exceptional circumstances existed to justify continued incarceration, the petitioner was admitted to bail.

  Questions settled

  • Are the provisions of Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 applicable to recoveries made from a vehicle during a police surprise check?
  • Is bail a rule and refusal an exception for offences that do not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can bail be refused to an accused as a measure of advance punishment?
  Read full judgment →
• MALANG JAN Versus State2018 PCrLJN 100 · Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court · 2017-05-02
  post-arrest bailnarcotics recoveryjoint pointationbenefit of doubtchemical analysisprohibitory clause
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by the petitioners, who were charged under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, following the alleged recovery of three kilograms of charas from a wooden crate at a vegetable market based on their pointation while in police custody. The core legal questions were whether the recovery, effected while the accused were in police custody and based on joint pointation, constitutes sufficient grounds to deny bail, and whether the failure to specify from which packet the sample for chemical analysis was drawn creates a doubt entitling the accused to bail. The Court held that the petitioners were entitled to bail, noting that joint recoveries are legally defective and inadmissible. Furthermore, the ambiguity regarding the sampling procedure for chemical analysis rendered the prosecution's case debatable. The Court established that when a criminal case becomes doubtful or debatable at the bail stage, the benefit of such doubt must be extended to the accused as a matter of right, rather than grace.

  Questions settled

  • Is a recovery effected on the joint pointation of multiple accused while in police custody admissible in evidence?
  • Does the failure of the prosecution to specify from which seized packet a sample was drawn for chemical analysis create a doubt entitling the accused to bail?
  • Should the benefit of doubt in a criminal case be extended to an accused at the bail stage?
  Read full judgment →
• SAQIB UD DIN Versus State2017 PCrLJN 67 · Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court
  post-arrest bailcommon intentionland disputeattempted murdercriminal liabilitydistinguishable roles
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a post-arrest bail petition filed by two petitioners, Saqib ud Din and Naeem ud Din, who were charged under sections 324, 337-A, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 in connection with an FIR registered at Police Station Airport Gilgit. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to the concession of bail given the specific roles attributed to them in the alleged attack, which arose from a land dispute. The complainant alleged that Naeem ud Din fired a pistol at him while Saqib ud Din held him. The Court held that while both were charged, the case of Saqib ud Din was distinguishable from that of Naeem ud Din, as the latter was the primary assailant from whom the weapon was recovered. Consequently, the Court granted bail to Saqib ud Din but declined bail for Naeem ud Din. The key principle applied is that where specific roles are attributed, the court may distinguish between the culpability of co-accused persons when determining entitlement to bail, particularly regarding the application of common intention under section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860.

  Questions settled

  • Is a co-accused entitled to bail if their role is distinguishable from the principal accused who allegedly fired the weapon?
  • Does an offence under section 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can bail be granted to one co-accused while being declined for another in the same FIR?
  Read full judgment →
• ARIF ULLAH Versus State2017 PCrLJN 62 · Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court
  post-arrest bailprisoner escapenegligence of jail staffstatutory delayfinal police reportanti-terrorism
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners, who were government servants and jail staff, sought post-arrest bail after being charged under sections 223, 224, 225, 109, 353, and 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, read with sections 6 and 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997, following the escape of high-profile prisoners from judicial custody due to alleged negligence. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to post-arrest bail considering their role as described in the final police report and the duration of their incarceration. The Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court held that since the final police report stated the petitioners were not privy to the main offence or abetment, but were merely negligent, and given their prolonged detention of over one and a half years without substantial trial progress along with no risk of abscondence or tampering with evidence, a case for bail was made out. The key principle laid down is that where an accused government servant's role is restricted to negligence rather than active abetment or planning in a prisoner escape, and prolonged incarceration without trial progress is established, the discretionary relief of post-arrest bail may be granted.

  Questions settled

  • Whether jail staff accused of negligence facilitating the escape of prisoners are entitled to post-arrest bail?
  • Does the absence of active abetment in a final police report justify the grant of bail to detained government servants?
  • Can prolonged incarceration without substantial progress in the trial serve as a ground for granting bail in high-profile cases?
  Read full judgment →
• JAWAHIR KHAN Versus State2017 PCrLJN 53 · Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court · 2016-12-07
  anti-terrorism jurisdictiontransfer of caseterrorism definitionintimidation of public servantAnti-Terrorism Act 1997criminal trial jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, charged with offences under sections 302, 324, 353, 454, and 506(2) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, read with sections 6 and 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997, sought the transfer of his case from the Anti-Terrorism Court to a court of ordinary jurisdiction. The petitioner argued that the incident arose from a personal vendetta rather than an intent to spread terror, thereby failing to meet the criteria for terrorism under the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997. The court examined whether the act constituted terrorism as defined by the statute. The Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court held that the petitioner's actions—attacking public servants with two pistols after his illegal demand for a special electricity connection was refused—constituted an attempt to intimidate public servants from performing their lawful duties. The court affirmed that such conduct falls within the scope of section 6 of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997, as it created a wave of terror among public servants and the community. Consequently, the petition for transfer was dismissed, confirming the jurisdiction of the Anti-Terrorism Court.

  Questions settled

  • Does an attack on public servants to force them to refrain from their lawful duties constitute an act of terrorism under the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997?
  • Can a case involving the murder of public servants by an individual demanding illegal favors be tried by an Anti-Terrorism Court?
  • Does the lack of a generalized intent to spread terror exclude an act from the definition of terrorism if it otherwise meets the statutory criteria of intimidation?
  Read full judgment →
• Haji DAULAT KARIM Versus State2017 PCrLJN 215 · Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court · 2016-08-04
  criminal appealadverse remarksinvestigating officerdisciplinary actiondefective investigationdiyatdelayed statement
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal was filed by the appellant, a retired police officer and former Investigating Officer, challenging specific adverse remarks and directions for disciplinary action and recovery of Diyat passed against him in a trial court judgment arising from FIR No.514/05 of Police Station City. The core legal question was whether the trial court was justified in holding the appellant responsible for delayed recording of a witness's statement and ordering disciplinary action and financial liability. The Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court held that the trial court misappreciated the timeline, as the investigation was only handed over to the appellant nearly two years after the occurrence, and he recorded the witness's statement promptly thereafter, whereas earlier investigators were responsible for the initial delay. Consequently, the appellate court allowed the appeal and expunged the adverse remarks and directions solely to the extent of the appellant. The key principle laid down is that an Investigating Officer cannot be penalized or subjected to adverse remarks for investigative delays that occurred prior to the case being entrusted to them.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an Investigating Officer can be held responsible for investigative delays that occurred before the investigation was entrusted to them?
  • Can adverse remarks and directions for disciplinary action against a police officer be expunged on appeal if based on a misappreciation of facts?
  • Whether a trial court is justified in ordering the recovery of Diyat from an Investigating Officer without establishing direct culpability for defective investigation?
  Read full judgment →
• MUSHTAQ ALAM Versus State2017 PCrLJN 210 · Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court · 2016-08-03
  post-arrest bailnarcotics offenceprima facie evidenceprohibitory clausechemical examiner reportred-handed arrest
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by the petitioner, who is charged under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, following the recovery of 1040 grams of narcotics (Churse Gardah) by the Anti-Narcotics Force. The petitioner sought bail after the trial court rejected his previous application. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to the grant of bail given the evidentiary material available on the police file. The Court observed that while the offence did not strictly fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, the prosecution had established a prima facie case. The Court noted that the petitioner was apprehended red-handed, witnesses were present during the recovery, and the chemical examiner's report was positive. Consequently, the Court held that the petitioner was not entitled to bail at this stage, as there was sufficient prima facie evidence connecting him to the offence. The bail petition was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Is an accused entitled to bail when there is prima facie evidence of recovery of narcotics in the presence of witnesses?
  • Does a case involving an offence punishable by life imprisonment necessarily fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • What is the scope of tentative assessment of prosecution evidence during bail proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. SHAMA ZUHRA Versus AMAN ALI SHAH2017 PCrLJN 156 · Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court · 2017-03-09
  criminal petitionappreciation of evidencehostile witnessremand for retrialquarrel between spouses
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal petition challenges the judgment dated 22-12-2016 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Nagar, whereby the trial concluded with the examination of only three prosecution witnesses out of seven. The core legal question concerns the propriety of concluding a trial and dismissing a case when the star witness does not support the prosecution version and remaining witnesses are formal. The Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court held that where the star witness fails to support the prosecution and the remaining formal witnesses cannot constitute an offence even if examined, the trial court's decision to acquit or not order a retrial is based on proper exercise of jurisdiction. The court laid down the principle that interference with a trial court's well-reasoned judgment is unwarranted when the material prosecution witness turns hostile and the remaining evidence is insufficient to establish an offence.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a retrial should be ordered when remaining prosecution witnesses are yet to be examined?
  • Does the failure of a star witness to support the prosecution warrant interference with a trial court judgment?
  • Are formal witnesses sufficient to constitute an offence when the primary testimony negates the prosecution story?
  Read full judgment →
• AHMAD MIR ALIA (HUDA) Versus State2017 PCrLJN 149 · Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court · 2016-12-31
  post-arrest bailmurderlast seen evidencecircumstantial evidenceprohibitory clausefurther inquiry
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners sought post-arrest bail in a case registered under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 relating to the murder of Sher Afzal, whose dead body was found near a wedding venue. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to bail on the basis of circumstantial and last-seen evidence, or if their involvement warranted further inquiry under section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court held that the petitioners were prima facie linked to the heinous offense through reliable last-seen evidence and a strong motive regarding an illicit marriage interest, bringing the case within the prohibitory clause. Consequently, the court declined bail, upholding the trial court's order.

  Questions settled

  • Whether last-seen evidence is sufficient to deny post-arrest bail in a murder case?
  • Does an offense falling within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 disentitle an accused to bail when prima facie connection exists?
  • When can a case be treated as one of further inquiry for the purpose of granting bail?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SAJJAD Versus State2017 PCrLJN 146 · Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court · 2016-12-06
  post-arrest bailfurther inquirytheftcriminal investigationbailscapegoating
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a post-arrest bail petition filed by petitioners accused of theft under sections 457 and 380 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, following their apprehension at the Sost Dry Port with a large quantity of mobile phones. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to bail given the allegations of red-handed arrest and the nature of the offence. The Court held that the petitioners were entitled to bail, noting that the investigation appeared biased, as the alleged masterminds and beneficiaries of the operation were not investigated, while the petitioners, who were likely employees, were made scapegoats. The Court further observed that the applicability of section 457, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, was questionable given the circumstances of the arrest outside the compound wall, thereby bringing the case within the scope of further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The key principle laid down is that where the investigation is prima facie one-sided and fails to implicate the actual beneficiaries of an alleged crime, the detention of subordinate employees who are likely scapegoats is not justified, warranting the grant of bail.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure of the police to investigate the alleged masterminds of an offence while arresting only the employees justify the grant of bail?
  • Does the uncertainty regarding the applicability of section 457 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, based on the location of the arrest, bring a case within the purview of further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can bail be granted where the investigation appears to be one-sided and fails to associate the real beneficiaries of the alleged crime?
  Read full judgment →
• NASRULLAH Versus State2017 PCrLJN 143 · Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court · 2017-01-04
  post-arrest bailhabitual offendernarcotic offencesprohibitory clausejudicial discretionbail application withdrawal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by the petitioner, who was charged under Section 9(b) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997, for the possession of 130 grams of charas. The core legal questions were whether the withdrawal of a prior bail application bars a subsequent application, and whether an accused charged with an offence outside the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, is entitled to bail as a matter of right despite being a habitual offender. The Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court held that while the simple withdrawal of a bail application does not preclude a subsequent filing, bail remains a judicial discretion. The Court affirmed that even if an offence falls outside the prohibitory clause, bail may be refused if there is a danger of the offence being repeated. Relying on established precedents, the Court determined that because the petitioner is a habitual offender who has previously misused the concession of bail by repeating similar offences, he is not entitled to the relief sought. Consequently, the bail application was declined.

  Questions settled

  • Does the withdrawal of a bail application without a decision on merits bar the filing of a subsequent bail application?
  • Can bail be refused for an offence falling outside the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • What are the specific conditions under which bail can be refused to an accused whose offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause?
  Read full judgment →
• GUSHER alias GUNAIR Versus State2017 PCrLJN 139 · Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court · 2017-01-04
  post-arrest bailabetmentprohibitory clausemurderconspiracyabsconding co-accused
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner filed a post-arrest bail application in a case involving charges under sections 302/109/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, following the murder of the complainant's husband. The petitioner, who was not present at the scene, was charged with abetment, specifically for allegedly instigating his nephews and son to commit the murder. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, charged with abetment in a capital offence where the principal assailants remained at large, was entitled to the concession of bail. The Court held that the petitioner was not entitled to bail, noting that the FIR was lodged promptly and corroborated by eye-witness statements recorded under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court emphasized that the petitioner's alleged role in the conspiracy and the fact that the principal offenders were absconding, combined with the nature of the offence falling within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, precluded the grant of bail at that stage. The petition was consequently dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Does the charge of abetment in a capital offence fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can an accused charged with abetment be granted bail when the principal offenders remain at large?
  • Is the prompt lodging of an FIR and corroborating eye-witness statements sufficient to deny bail in a murder case?
  Read full judgment →
• BAQIR ALI alias ASHGAR Versus State2017 PCrLJN 136 · Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court · 2017-01-07
  post-arrest bailSection 379 PPCnon-prohibitory clausehabitual offendercattle theftfurther inquiryidentity of accused
  Summary & questions settled

  The Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court heard criminal miscellaneous petitions seeking post-arrest bail arising out of multiple FIRs registered under Section 379 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the theft and slaughter of livestock. The petitioners contended that the offence carries a three-year sentence, falls outside the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and bail ought to be granted as a rule. The State opposed, highlighting that the accused were habitual offenders whose actions severely affected destitute families. The Court held that even in non-prohibitory clause offences, bail is not an absolute rule; habitual offenders engaging in offences detrimental to society cannot be granted discretionary relief. However, regarding petitioner Baqir Ali alias Asghar Ali, a discrepancy existed concerning his identity and age based on Form 'B' and remand records. The Court granted post-arrest bail to Baqir Ali on the ground of further inquiry under Section 497(2), Cr.P.C., while dismissing the bail petitions of the co-accused.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an accused charged with an offence outside the prohibitory clause of Section 497(1), Cr.P.C. is entitled to bail as an absolute right when categorized as a habitual offender?
  • Can bail be denied in non-prohibitory clause cases on the grounds of societal impact and prevention of miscarriage of justice?
  • Does an unrectified discrepancy in an accused person's name and age between remand records and official identity documents make the case one of further inquiry under Section 497, Cr.P.C.?
  Read full judgment →
• ABDUL MANAN Versus State2017 PCrLJN 128 · Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court · 2017-01-07
  pre-arrest bailmala fidesfurther inquirytentative assessmentcriminal liabilityextraordinary concession
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for pre-arrest bail filed by the petitioners, who were booked under sections 435, 436, 427, 447, 147, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, and sections 6 and 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997, following an FIR registered at Police Station City Chilas. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to the extraordinary concession of pre-arrest bail given the allegations of mala fides and the general nature of the accusations. The Court observed that while the petitioners were named in the FIR, the allegations of arson were general, and the involvement of a large crowd necessitated further inquiry to determine individual culpability. Holding that the case warranted the exercise of judicial discretion to protect the liberty of citizens where charges appear motivated or overly broad, the Court confirmed the pre-arrest bail. The key principle established is that when a tentative assessment reveals that charges may be motivated by mala fides or involve a wide net cast over potentially innocent individuals, the Court has a duty to grant pre-arrest bail to prevent the abuse of process.

  Questions settled

  • Does the inclusion of general allegations against multiple accused in an FIR necessitate further inquiry for the purpose of granting pre-arrest bail?
  • Under what circumstances should a court grant the extraordinary concession of pre-arrest bail?
  • Is pre-arrest bail appropriate when the court finds that the charges may be motivated by mala fides or result from a wide net being cast?
  Read full judgment →
• RAZ MUHAMMAD Versus State2023 PCrLJN 11 · Federal Shariat Court · 2021-06-15
  murderrobberyabscondenceocular evidencechance witnessnon-recovery of crime weaponballistic expert opinioncriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Loralai, whereby the appellant was convicted under section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of the deceased during an attempted motorcycle robbery and sentenced to life imprisonment. The core legal questions involved the credibility of eyewitnesses, the effect of the appellant's prolonged abscondence, the non-recovery of the crime weapon, and the absence of ballistic matching. The Federal Shariat Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the prompt FIR, consistent and trustworthy ocular testimony supported by medical evidence, and the unexplained six-year abscondence of the appellant firmly established his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The Court laid down that minor contradictions of long passage of time do not impair otherwise credible eyewitness accounts, that ballistic and weapon recovery are merely corroborative and not mandatory when direct evidence is robust, and that a witness's presence cannot be doubted merely because they escaped unhurt during a firearm attack.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the unhurt status of eyewitnesses during a firearm attack renders their presence at the scene doubtful?
  • Does the non-recovery of the crime weapon and the failure to send empty shells for ballistic analysis vitiate an otherwise well-supported murder conviction?
  • What is the evidentiary value of a long period of unexplained abscondence by an accused nominated in a prompt FIR?
  • Whether minor contradictions arising from a lapse of several years between the incident and the testimony are sufficient to discard otherwise consistent eyewitness accounts?
  Read full judgment →
• AYAZ Versus State2020 PCrLJN 44 · Federal Shariat Court · 2019-05-02
  identification paradecriminal appealacquittalSection 342 CrPCmurder trialbenefit of doubtvisual identification
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the convictions of three appellants for murder and robbery under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance VI of 1979. The core legal questions concerned the validity of the identification parade procedures, the reliability of visual identification in poor lighting, and the procedural consequences of the trial court's failure to put all incriminating evidence to the accused under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Federal Shariat Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The Court found the identification parade procedurally flawed, noting the lack of proper dummies and the failure to record specific features of the suspects in the FIR. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that the trial court's failure to confront the accused with all incriminating evidence during their Section 342 statements was a fatal procedural irregularity. Consequently, the Court set aside the convictions and acquitted the appellants, reiterating that convictions cannot rest on suspicion or high probability, but must be based on concrete, legally admissible proof.

  Questions settled

  • What are the mandatory parameters for conducting a valid identification parade?
  • Does the failure of a trial court to put all incriminating evidence to an accused under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 vitiate the conviction?
  • Is visual identification of an unknown suspect in poor lighting conditions sufficient to sustain a conviction without corroboration?
  • Can a conviction be sustained based on suspicion or high probability in the absence of proof beyond reasonable doubt?
  Read full judgment →
• KHALID USMAN Versus State2020 PCrLJN 200 · Federal Shariat Court · 2019-04-01
  retracted confessionhostile witnessbenefit of the doubtcriminal appealmurder trialconfessional statementjudgment contentshudood ordinance
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellant was charged under section 17(4) of the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, tried, and convicted under sections 396 and 109 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, and sentenced to 10 years' rigorous imprisonment with a fine. The case arose from an unseen murder where an unknown dead body was found and an FIR was registered against unknown culprits. The core legal questions involved the reliability of a retracted judicial confession, the legal effect of a prosecution witness (widow of the deceased) being declared hostile after a delay of two years without court permission under Article 150 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984, the mandatory compliance of section 367 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 regarding the contents of a judgment, and the sufficiency of circumstantial and confessional evidence. The Federal Shariat Court held that the retracted, involuntary confessional statement lacked legal sanctity and could not form the sole basis for conviction, that cross-examining a witness as hostile without court leave vitiates the procedure, and that the trial court failed to frame points for determination under section 367, Cr.P.C. Consequently, the appeal was accepted, and the appellant was acquitted of the charges by extending the benefit of the doubt.

  Questions settled

  • Can a retracted confessional statement form the sole basis for upholding a conviction without strong corroboration?
  • Whether a prosecution witness can be declared hostile and cross-examined after a lapse of two years without the prior permission of the trial court under Article 150 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984?
  • Is a judgment rendered by a trial court valid if it fails to formulate points for determination and state reasons as mandatorily required by section 367 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • What is the evidentiary value of an exculpatory confessional statement recorded after prolonged police custody and without being read over in the native language of an illiterate accused?
  Read full judgment →
• ABID HUSSAIN alias JAVED Versus TAHAWAR KHAN, S.-I. POLICE STATION CITY NAROWAL2019 PCrLJN 52 · Federal Shariat Court · 2018-10-10
  revisional jurisdictionprohibition orderrecovery of liquorunexplained delay in sending samplesforensic science agency reportreduction of sentence
  Summary & questions settled

  This revision petition was filed by the petitioner against the concurrent judgments of the trial court and appellate court whereby he was convicted under Article 4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order of 1979 and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year with a fine. The prosecution case alleged the recovery of five bottles of liquor from the petitioner's possession on spy information. The core legal questions involved the reliability of police-only evidence, the effect of an unexplained ten-day delay in dispatching the recovery samples to the forensic laboratory, and discrepancies in the forensic report. The Federal Shariat Court did not adjudicate upon the merits of the conviction as the petitioner's counsel opted not to press the revision on merits, instead seeking a reduction of sentence to the period already undergone. The court noted significant flaws including an unexplained ten-day delay in sending samples to the forensic science agency and the laboratory report's failure to state the quantity or complete description of the analyzed property. Consequently, the court reduced the awarded sentence to the period already undergone by the petitioner.

  Questions settled

  • What is the legal effect of an unexplained delay in dispatching recovered contraband samples to the forensic laboratory?
  • Can the revisional court reduce a sentence to the period already undergone upon consideration of the circumstances of the case without deciding the merits?
  • Does a forensic science laboratory report lacking specific description and quantity of the analyzed substance create doubt in the prosecution case?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD RIAZ Versus State2019 PCrLJN 44 · Federal Shariat Court · 2018-11-08
  Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Ordercriminal revisionreasonable doubtchemical examiner reportrepresentative sampleSection 342 CrPCpolice witness credibilityacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition challenged the concurrent findings of the lower courts, which convicted the petitioner under Article 4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979, for the possession of liquor. The core legal questions concerned whether the prosecution proved the charge beyond reasonable doubt, the validity of the chemical examiner's report based on a non-representative sample, and the impact of procedural lapses, including the failure to put incriminating evidence to the accused under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Federal Shariat Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case, citing material contradictions in police testimony, an unexplained 18-day delay in transmitting samples, and the failure to produce the case property or vehicle in court. The Court emphasized that representative samples must be taken from each item for chemical analysis to establish guilt. Furthermore, the Court ruled that the trial court's failure to question the accused regarding incriminating evidence under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 constituted a fatal illegality. Consequently, the conviction was set aside, and the petitioner was acquitted.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure to take representative samples from each recovered item for chemical analysis invalidate the prosecution's case?
  • Is the failure to put incriminating evidence to the accused during a statement under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 a fatal illegality?
  • Can a conviction be sustained when the prosecution relies solely on contradictory police testimony without independent corroboration?
  • Does an unexplained delay in sending samples to the chemical laboratory create a reasonable doubt regarding the integrity of the evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Raja MUNIR AHMED Versus State2019 PCrLJN 40 · Federal Shariat Court · 2018-11-12
  criminal revisionprohibition orderbenefit of doubtsearch and recoverynon-production of case propertyexamination of accusedcontradictory evidenceacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition was filed under Article 203DD of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 against an appellate judgment that had partly allowed an appeal, acquitting the petitioners under sections 468 and 471 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 while maintaining their conviction and sentence under Articles 3 and 4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979. The core legal questions involved the legality of the search and recovery, non-production of case property at trial, failure to put the chemical examiner's report to the accused under section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and non-compliance with section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 regarding independent witnesses. The Federal Shariat Court held that the prosecution miserably failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt due to numerous material contradictions, non-production of case property, violation of search and recovery procedures, and failure to confront the accused with the chemical report. The court set aside the judgments of both lower courts, acquitted the petitioners of all charges, and laid down that a single substantial doubt in the prosecution's case entitles the accused to the benefit of doubt as a matter of right.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the failure to produce the recovered case property during trial creates a fatal dent in the prosecution case?
  • Does the omission to confront the accused with the chemical examiner's report under section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 vitiate the conviction?
  • Is non-compliance with section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 regarding independent recovery witnesses fatal to the prosecution?
  • Does a single substantial doubt in the prosecution evidence entitle the accused to an acquittal as a matter of right?
  Read full judgment →
• TANVEER Versus State2019 PCrLJN 34 · Federal Shariat Court · 2018-09-17
  gang rapeabductionhostile witnessescontradictory testimonyabscondencemedical evidencebenefit of doubtcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Trial Court convicting the appellant for abduction, gang rape, house trespass, and causing hurt under the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979 and the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, along with a reference for confirmation of the death sentence. The core legal questions involve the credibility of highly contradictory and shifting ocular testimonies of hostile witnesses, the evidentiary value of belated FIR lodging, delayed forensic weapon recovery without safe custody, and the legal weight of the appellant's abscondence. The Federal Shariat Court held that the prosecution miserably failed to establish its case beyond a reasonable doubt due to self-contradictory statements by the prosecutrix and eyewitnesses, conflict between ocular and medical evidence, and flawed recovery proceedings. The Court laid down that abscondence alone cannot substitute for cogent, independent proof of guilt, and conflicting, improvised testimonies cannot sustain a conviction. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the conviction and death sentence were set aside, the appellant was acquitted, and the murder reference was answered in the negative.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction for a capital offense be sustained solely on the basis of self-contradictory ocular testimony given by witnesses who repeatedly turned hostile?
  • Does the mere abscondence of an accused person serve as conclusive proof of guilt when the prosecution fails to independently prove the charge beyond a reasonable doubt?
  • What is the evidentiary value of weapon recoveries when the crime empties and the recovered weapon are sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory together with unexplained delay and without safe custody?
  • Does medical evidence showing healed old rupture of the hymen and normal regular intercourse corroborate a charge of gang rape by multiple persons in the absence of external genital violence?
  Read full judgment →
• AZIZULLAH alias HERO Versus State2019 PCrLJN 157 · Federal Shariat Court · 2019-03-12
  Criminal AppealSection 396 PPCConfessional StatementAbscondenceCorroborative EvidenceExamination of AccusedAcquittal of Co-accusedFederal Shariat Court
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal was heard by the Federal Shariat Court, having been transferred from the High Court of Sindh for want of jurisdiction, challenging the appellant's conviction and sentence under Section 396 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Dadu. The core legal questions pertained to whether an unproven and coerced confessional statement, where the recording Magistrate was not examined as a witness and the confession was not put to the accused under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, could sustain a conviction, and whether the appellant's prolonged abscondence constituted substantive evidence of guilt. The Court held that the prosecution miserably failed to establish its case beyond a reasonable doubt, noting that co-accused were previously acquitted on the same evidence. The Court reiterated the established legal principle that abscondence per se is merely corroborative, not a substantive piece of evidence, and cannot remedy core prosecution defects or sustain a conviction in isolation. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the conviction and sentence were set aside.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction be sustained solely on the basis of a confessional statement when the recording Magistrate is not examined as a witness?
  • Whether the abscondence of an accused person constitutes substantive evidence sufficient on its own to sustain a criminal conviction?
  • Can an incriminating confessional statement or identification be relied upon by the trial court if it was not put to the accused during their examination under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD RIAZ CHEEMA Versus State2018 PCrLJN 87 · Federal Shariat Court · 2017-06-02
  quashing of summoning orderoffence of qazfpolice protectioninvestigating officer immunitymalicious prosecutioncriminal revisionpolice order 2002
  Summary & questions settled

  This revision petition challenged the order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Rawalpindi, summoning the petitioner (a police Sub-Inspector) in a private complaint under Section 7 of the Offence of Qazf (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, following the acquittal of the respondent of a Zina charge. The core legal question was whether an investigating police officer who registered an FIR and conducted an investigation in official line of duty could be prosecuted for Qazf when the underlying allegation was later found false. The Federal Shariat Court allowed the petition and set aside the summoning order. The court held that a police officer acting in good faith pursuant to statutory duties under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and protected by Articles 171 and 172 of the Police Order 2002 cannot be held liable for Qazf unless he originated the false accusation or gave false evidence. The key principles laid down are that police officers performing official investigation duties are immune from such criminal prosecution in the absence of mala fides or active fabrication, and that criminal complaints filed years out of time against law enforcement personnel constitute an abuse of process.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an investigating police officer can be prosecuted for the offence of Qazf for registering an FIR and investigating a case in the line of official duty?
  • Does a police officer enjoy statutory protection under the Police Order 2002 for acts done in good faith during the discharge of official duties?
  • Can a private complaint for Qazf be sustained against a police officer who neither originated the allegation of Zina nor appeared as a witness to the alleged offence?
  • Whether the initiation of criminal proceedings against a law enforcement official several years after the discharge of official duties amounts to an abuse of the process of law?
  Read full judgment →
• ASHFAQ Versus Mst. KALSOOM BIBI2018 PCrLJN 180 · Federal Shariat Court · 2018-04-24
  judicial confessioncircumstantial evidencecriminal appealburden of proofprocedural infirmityrecovery of stolen propertyacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns criminal appeals against a judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Charsadda, which convicted the appellants for murder and receiving stolen property. The core legal questions involved the admissibility and evidentiary value of judicial confessions, the sufficiency of circumstantial evidence, and the validity of recoveries. The Federal Shariat Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The court ruled that the judicial confessions were inadmissible due to significant procedural infirmities, including failure to provide mandatory warnings, lack of proper time for reflection, and the presence of police officials during recording. Furthermore, the confessions were inconsistent with medical evidence and lacked independent corroboration. The court also found the circumstantial evidence, including pointation and call data, to be unreliable and fabricated. Consequently, the court set aside the convictions and acquitted all appellants. The judgment reaffirms the principle that in criminal cases, the burden of proof lies strictly on the prosecution, and any doubt must be resolved in favor of the accused, especially when evidence is circumstantial or confessions are procedurally flawed.

  Questions settled

  • What are the mandatory procedural requirements for recording a valid judicial confession under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can a conviction be sustained on circumstantial evidence if the chain of events is broken or inconsistent with medical evidence?
  • Does the recovery of stolen property from a third party, without proof of guilty knowledge, satisfy the requirements for a conviction under Section 412 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • What is the evidentiary value of a retracted judicial confession when it lacks independent corroboration?
  Read full judgment →
• SHAMEEM KHAN Versus State2017 PCrLJN 109 · Federal Shariat Court · 2017-03-07
  murderdacoityretracted confessionidentification paradeweapon recoverycircumstantial evidencedeath sentence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal and murder reference arise from a judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Ghazi, convicting the appellants for murder and dacoity in connection with the killing of a Suzuki driver during a vehicle hijacking. The core legal questions involved the credibility of a retracted confessional statement, the reliability of a prompt identification parade, and whether circumstantial evidence and recoveries sufficiently corroborated the prosecution's case. The Federal Shariat Court dismissed the appeals and confirmed the death sentence of the primary appellant and the life imprisonment of the co-accused. The court held that the prosecution successfully established its case beyond reasonable doubt through confidence-inspiring ocular testimony, prompt apprehension of the accused at the scene with the weapon of offence, corroborative forensic reports, and a voluntary confessional statement free from coercion. The key principle laid down is that a retracted confession, when corroborated by independent testimony, medical evidence, and reliable weapon recoveries, forms a sufficient basis for maintaining a conviction in heinous offenses.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a retracted confessional statement can be relied upon when corroborated by independent ocular and medical testimony?
  • Does the prompt arrest of an accused carrying the weapon of offence immediately after the incident constitute sufficient circumstantial evidence of guilt?
  • Is a conviction sustainable under section 17(4) of the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 when the identification parade and recovery are proved through unimpeachable independent witnesses?
  • Whether minor irregularities in recording administrative details of an identification parade vitiate the entire proceeding if conducted under the supervision of a judicial magistrate?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD HAYAT Versus State2023 PCrLJN 98 · Balochistan High Court · 2022-05-23
  possession of stolen propertycriminal appealbenefit of doubtdefective investigationacquittalevidence appreciation
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction of the appellant under Section 412, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, for the possession of a stolen motorcycle. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had established the charge beyond reasonable doubt. The High Court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant. The court held that the prosecution's case was fundamentally defective due to the failure to associate the alleged owner of the motorcycle in the investigation and the failure to produce them as a witness. Furthermore, the court identified material discrepancies between the engine and chassis numbers of the recovered motorcycle and those recorded in the initial FIR registered at the place of theft. The court emphasized that the prosecution failed to explain these contradictions or properly coordinate the investigation between jurisdictions. Consequently, the court ruled that these gaps created reasonable doubt, and the appellant was entitled to the benefit of such doubt, as the trial court had failed to properly appreciate these material evidentiary defects.

  Questions settled

  • Does a failure to associate the alleged owner of stolen property in the investigation create reasonable doubt in a case under Section 412 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Are material discrepancies in engine and chassis numbers between two FIRs sufficient grounds to acquit an accused of possessing stolen property?
  • Is an accused entitled to the benefit of the doubt when the prosecution fails to explain contradictions in the evidence regarding the identity of the recovered property?
  Read full judgment →
• INAYAT ULLAH Versus State2023 PCrLJN 93 · Balochistan High Court · 2022-08-12
  post-arrest bailmurdertentative assessmentnon-bailable offenceFIRcriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by the accused, Inayat Ullah, in connection with a criminal case registered under sections 302, 324, 147, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the accused was entitled to the grant of post-arrest bail given the allegations of indiscriminate firing resulting in two deaths and two injuries, despite arguments regarding the lack of specific role attribution and delayed recording of witness statements. The Court held that the applicant was not entitled to bail, reasoning that the FIR and witness statements provided prima facie evidence of his involvement in a heinous, non-bailable offence. The Court emphasized that a deeper appreciation of evidence is impermissible at the bail stage, requiring only a tentative assessment. The key principle laid down is that where there is incriminating material connecting an accused to a non-bailable offence, and the delay in recording witness statements is not sufficient to warrant relief, bail should be refused, as the court must avoid a deeper appreciation of evidence at the pre-trial stage.

  Questions settled

  • Can a court conduct a deeper appreciation of evidence during the bail stage?
  • Does a delay in recording statements of eye-witnesses under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 automatically entitle an accused to bail?
  • Is the offence under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 bailable?
  Read full judgment →
• ZAFAR IQBAL Versus State2023 PCrLJN 7 · Balochistan High Court · 2021-06-18
  fair trialcross-examinationright of accusedanti-corruptionprocedural justicecounsel negligencecriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition challenged orders passed by the Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, which closed the petitioner's right to cross-examine prosecution witnesses due to the repeated absence of his counsel. The core legal question was whether the trial court’s forfeiture of the right to cross-examine, owing to the counsel's failure to appear, constitutes a denial of the accused's right to a fair trial. The High Court held that the right to cross-examine is a fundamental and valuable right of an accused, essential for testing the veracity of prosecution evidence. The Court determined that the accused should not be penalized for the negligence or absence of their counsel, as this causes serious prejudice and violates the constitutional guarantee of a fair trial under Article 10-A. Consequently, the impugned orders were set aside, and the trial court was directed to provide the petitioner an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses. The key principle laid down is that the trial court has a primary responsibility to ensure truth is discovered, and where counsel is absent, the court should facilitate representation rather than summarily depriving the accused of the right to cross-examine.

  Questions settled

  • Does the absence of a defense counsel justify the trial court in closing the accused's right to cross-examine prosecution witnesses?
  • Is the right to cross-examine prosecution witnesses a fundamental component of the right to a fair trial under Article 10-A of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  • Should an accused suffer the consequences of their counsel's failure to appear for cross-examination?
  Read full judgment →
• HADAYATULLAH Versus State2023 PCrLJN 53 · Balochistan High Court · 2020-08-10
  pre-arrest bailfurther inquirymala fidedelayed FIRprohibitory clauseforgeryfraud
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for the confirmation of ad-interim pre-arrest bail in a case involving allegations of fraud and forgery. The petitioner was accused of selling a stolen vehicle with a forged registration book to the complainant. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to pre-arrest bail given the circumstances of the case, specifically the delay in lodging the FIR and the nature of the allegations. The Court held that the case fell within the ambit of further inquiry, noting that the FIR was lodged with a significant delay of over three months after the vehicle was taken into possession by police. The Court observed that the mala fide intent behind the belated FIR could not be ruled out and that the offense did not fall within the prohibitory clause of the relevant law. Consequently, the Court confirmed the ad-interim pre-arrest bail, emphasizing that the grant of bail depends on the specific facts and circumstances of each case rather than rigid rules.

  Questions settled

  • Does a significant delay in lodging an FIR justify the grant of pre-arrest bail?
  • Can pre-arrest bail be granted when the alleged offense does not fall within the prohibitory clause?
  • Is the determination of bail dependent on the specific facts and circumstances of each case?
  Read full judgment →
• ASIF KHAN Versus ANTI-TERRORISM COURT, DERA ALLAH YAR2023 PCrLJN 40 · Balochistan High Court · 2020-05-21
  Anti-Terrorism Court jurisdictionkidnapping for ransomtransfer of caseconstitutional petitiontentative assessment of recordThird Schedule ATA
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged an order passed by an Anti-Terrorism Court (ATC) which had rejected the petitioner's application to transfer a criminal case to an ordinary court. The core legal question was whether the alleged offence of kidnapping for ransom, as described in the FIR and investigation report, fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Anti-Terrorism Court. Upon a tentative assessment of the record, including the FIR and statements recorded under sections 161 and 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, the High Court found that the allegations of abduction for ransom clearly attracted the provisions of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997. The Court held that since kidnapping for ransom is explicitly listed in the Third Schedule of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 as an offence exclusively triable by an Anti-Terrorism Court, the trial court had correctly assumed jurisdiction. Consequently, the petition was dismissed in limine, affirming that the nature of the offence, rather than the mere filing of the FIR, determines the appropriate forum for trial.

  Questions settled

  • Does the offence of kidnapping for ransom fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of an Anti-Terrorism Court?
  • What is the standard for determining whether a case is triable by an Anti-Terrorism Court versus an ordinary court?
  • Is a trial court's order refusing to transfer a case to an ordinary court subject to interference if the offence is listed in the Third Schedule of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997?
  Read full judgment →
• ASIF Versus State2023 PCrLJN 33 · Balochistan High Court · 2020-06-22
  post-arrest bailControl of Narcotic Substances Act 1997narcoticsopiumcommercial quantityred-handed recoverydiscretionary reliefSection 51 bar
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal matter arose from a post-arrest bail application filed by the applicant, who was charged under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 following the alleged recovery of 4 kilograms of opium from his possession in a black shopping bag. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to the concession of post-arrest bail under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 read with Section 51 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997. The High Court dismissed the bail application, refusing discretionary relief. The Court held that offences under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 are heinous crimes committed against society at large. Consequently, Section 51 of the Act imposes a statutory caution against granting bail in the ordinary course. An accused caught red-handed with commercial quantities of narcotics does not qualify for discretionary bail unless they convincingly demonstrate entitlement to further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an accused apprehended red-handed with four kilograms of opium is entitled to post-arrest bail under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997?
  • How does Section 51 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 restrict the exercise of discretion under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Under what circumstances can a person accused of offences under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 qualify for discretionary bail pursuant to Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• FEROZ KHAN Versus State2023 PCrLJN 29 · Balochistan High Court · 2020-10-31
  criminal revisionrobberybenefit of doubtburden of proofconvictionacquittalownership of property
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition challenges the concurrent judgments of the trial court and the appellate court, which convicted and sentenced the petitioner under Section 392 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for robbery. The core legal questions were whether the prosecution successfully established the essential ingredients of robbery, specifically the element of fear or force, and whether the ownership of the allegedly stolen property was proven beyond reasonable doubt. The High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case, noting significant lacunas: the complainant failed to establish ownership of the mobile phone, the prosecution did not produce corroborative evidence, and the complainant's testimony regarding the incident was inconsistent and lacked credibility. Furthermore, the court found that the prosecution failed to demonstrate that the accused caused or attempted to cause fear of instant death, hurt, or wrongful restraint, which are statutory prerequisites for the offence of robbery. Consequently, the court set aside the convictions, acquitted the petitioner, and ordered his immediate release, reaffirming the principle that the benefit of any reasonable doubt in criminal proceedings must be extended to the accused as a matter of right.

  Questions settled

  • What are the essential elements required to constitute the offence of robbery under Section 392 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Is a conviction sustainable when the prosecution fails to prove the ownership of the property allegedly stolen?
  • Does the failure of the prosecution to prove the element of fear of instant death or hurt negate a charge of robbery?
  • Is the benefit of doubt a matter of right for an accused when the prosecution's evidence contains significant lacunas?
  Read full judgment →
• GHULAM MUSTAFA Versus State2023 PCrLJN 105 · Balochistan High Court · 2022-06-20
  criminal appealrapezinabenefit of the doubtdelayed FIRmedical evidencefalse implicationprevious enmity
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant under section 376 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and sentencing him to rigorous imprisonment for life. The core legal questions involve the assessment of evidence in a rape case, particularly the effect of an unexplained two-day delay in lodging the First Information Report, the presence of previous land and family disputes creating a strong motive for false implication, hearsay evidence, and the absence of corroborative medical and forensic evidence such as semen detection or signs of violence. The court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt due to glaring discrepancies, delayed FIR registration, tainted witness testimonies, and lack of medical corroboration. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the conviction was set aside, and the appellant was acquitted by extending the benefit of the doubt, reinforcing the principle that a single circumstance creating a reasonable doubt entitles the accused to acquittal as a matter of right.

  Questions settled

  • What is the legal effect of an unexplained delay of two days in lodging an FIR in a rape case?
  • Does the presence of previous enmity and litigation between parties render the prosecution case doubtful regarding false implication?
  • Can a conviction under section 376 of the Pakistan Penal Code be sustained in the absence of corroborative medical evidence and semen detection?
  • When is an accused entitled to the benefit of the doubt as a matter of right under criminal jurisprudence?
  Read full judgment →
• RAFAAT SHAH Versus State2022 PCrLJN 39 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-11-22
  murderculpable homicidebenefit of doubtdelayed FIRrelated witnessesmedical evidencecriminal appealacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Sessions Judge convicting the appellant under Section 302(c) of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, for the murder of the deceased. The core legal questions involved the credibility of related eye-witnesses, the effect of an unexplained delayed lodging of the First Information Report, and whether the medical evidence corroborated the prosecution's ocular account. The Balochistan High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish its case beyond a reasonable doubt due to unnatural delay in reporting the crime, doubtful presence of the alleged eye-witnesses who were closely related to the deceased, lack of prompt reporting despite a police station being situated nearby, and material contradictions between the ocular testimony and the medical evidence. The court laid down the principle that the testimony of related witnesses must be evaluated with extreme care and caution and requires strong corroborative circumstances, and that even a single reasonable doubt entitles the accused to an acquittal as a matter of right. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the conviction and sentence were set aside, and the appellant was acquitted.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the testimony of related eye-witnesses can be safely relied upon without strong corroboration when there is an unexplained delay in reporting the crime?
  • Does an unverified and delayed lodging of an FIR near a police station cast serious doubt on the veracity of the prosecution's case?
  • Whether contradictions between ocular testimony and medical evidence regarding the nature and number of injuries are sufficient to extend the benefit of doubt to the accused?
  • What is the evidentiary value of a recovery stone that lacks bloodstaining and is recovered a day after the incident?
  Read full judgment →
• GHUNGAR KHAN Versus State2022 PCrLJN 32 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-09-06
  criminal appealmurderbenefit of doubtdelay in FIRinterested witnessesdishonest improvementsmedical evidenceacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant under section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and sentencing him to life imprisonment. A connected constitutional petition sought enhancement of the sentence to capital punishment. The core legal questions involved the credibility of related and interested eye-witnesses, the legal effect of an inordinate unexplained delay in lodging the First Information Report, unnatural conduct of witnesses leaving dead bodies unattended for over a month, and dishonest improvements made by witnesses to align ocular testimony with medical evidence. The Balochistan High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt due to planted witnesses, unnatural post-occurrence conduct, and material improvements. The court laid down that delay without plausible explanation is fatal to the prosecution, and dishonest improvements to match medical evidence render eye-witnesses untrustworthy. Consequently, the High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction, acquitted the appellant, and dismissed the petition for sentence enhancement.

  Questions settled

  • What is the legal effect of an unexplained inordinate delay in lodging an FIR on the prosecution case?
  • Can the testimony of related or interested eye-witnesses be relied upon when their post-occurrence conduct is unnatural and uncorroborated?
  • Does making dishonest improvements in witness statements to bring the ocular version in line with medical evidence render the witnesses untrustworthy?
  • What is the consequence of failing to produce important material witnesses mentioned in the initial report?
  Read full judgment →
• AMJAD ALI Versus State2022 PCrLJN 17 · Balochistan High Court · 2020-01-27
  criminal appealrapebenefit of doubtappreciation of evidenceacquittalunnatural conductcontradictions
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from a judgment passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Panjgur, convicting the appellants under sections 376(2) and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code and sentencing them to life imprisonment. The prosecution alleged that the appellants abducted two women and committed rape upon them. The core legal question before the Balochistan High Court was whether the prosecution successfully established the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt through consistent, trustworthy evidence. The court held that the prosecution case suffered from material contradictions, dishonest improvements, unnatural conduct of the victims, and lack of proper identification, rendering the entire case doubtful. Consequently, the High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the trial court's judgment, and acquitted the appellants by extending the benefit of the doubt. The key principle laid down is that the prosecution must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, and even a single circumstance creating a reasonable doubt entitles the accused to acquittal as a matter of right rather than grace.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the prosecution is bound to prove its case against the accused beyond any reasonable doubt in criminal trials?
  • Is an accused entitled to the benefit of the doubt as a matter of right when a single reasonable doubt is created in the prosecution story?
  • Does the unnatural conduct of alleged victims and delayed reporting cast serious doubt on the veracity of the prosecution's case in a charge of rape?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed GUL Versus State2022 PCrLJN 119 · Balochistan High Court · 2021-01-29
  post-arrest bailmurderfirearm injuryocular evidencerule of consistencybail dismissal
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a post-arrest bail application filed by the applicant Syed Gul in case FIR No. 12 of 2020 registered under sections 302, 337-ADF, 147, 148, 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Levies Thana Murgha Kibzai, District Zhob. The core legal question concerns whether the applicant is entitled to the concession of post-arrest bail when directly nominated in a promptly lodged FIR with the specific role of firing at and causing the death of the deceased, supported by ocular and medical evidence. The Balochistan High Court held that the applicant was nominated with a specific, fatal role distinguishing him from co-accused, and that reasonable grounds existed connecting him to the non-bailable offence. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the bail application, ruling that completion of investigation and arguments regarding consistency do not warrant bail in the presence of direct incriminating evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Whether post-arrest bail can be granted to an accused directly nominated in the FIR with a specific fatal role of firing at the deceased?
  • Does the mere completion of investigation constitute a sufficient ground for the grant of bail in a heinous offence?
  • Does the rule of consistency apply when the role assigned to the bail petitioner is distinguishable from that of co-accused who were granted bail?
  Read full judgment →
• ABDULLAH alias KHALIQ DAD Versus State2021 PCrLJN 83 · Balochistan High Court · 2020-11-24
  qatl-i-amdmurderrelated witnessesocular accountmedical evidencecriminal appealrecovery of weapon
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant under section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for qatl-i-amd and sentencing him to rigorous imprisonment for life. The core legal question centered on whether the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt through consistent ocular testimony, despite the witnesses being related to the deceased. The Balochistan High Court held that the testimony of related witnesses is credible when their presence at the scene is established beyond doubt and they remain firm under cross-examination, and that minor discrepancies or delays in forensic transmission do not undermine a trustworthy ocular account corroborated by medical evidence. The appeal was dismissed, upholding the conviction and sentence.

  Questions settled

  • Can the testimony of related or interested witnesses be discarded solely on the ground of their relationship with the deceased?
  • Does a delay in sending the crime weapon and crime empties to the Forensic Science Laboratory automatically render the prosecution case doubtful?
  • Whether minor contradictions in the statements of eye-witnesses are sufficient to discard the prosecution case?
  • Is independent corroboration strictly mandatory for accepting the evidence of an interested witness whose presence at the crime scene is proved beyond doubt?
  Read full judgment →
• JUMMA KHAN Versus State2021 PCrLJN 73 · Balochistan High Court · 2020-11-24
  criminal appealmurderinjuries on witnesssole eyewitnessmedical evidencecontradictionsbenefit of doubtacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant under sections 302(b), 324, and 337-A(i) of the Pakistan Penal Code. The prosecution case primarily rested on the sole testimony of an injured eyewitness, supported by medical and circumstantial evidence. The core legal question before the Balochistan High Court was whether the prosecution had proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt, particularly in light of material contradictions between the ocular testimony and medical evidence, and the fragmentation of the eyewitness's credibility. The court held that the statement of an injured witness, while indicating presence, does not automatically guarantee truthfulness or eliminate the need for strict corroboration, especially when the witness is discredited regarding co-accused. Finding numerous discrepancies and inherent doubts in the prosecution's narrative, the court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant, reiterating the cardinal principle that a single reasonable doubt entitles the accused to acquittal as a matter of right.

  Questions settled

  • Does the presence of injuries on a prosecution witness conclusively prove the credibility and truth of their testimony?
  • Can a conviction be safely sustained on the sole statement of an eyewitness when it suffers from material contradictions and discrepancies?
  • Is the credibility of a witness divisible so as to accept a portion while discarding the rest?
  • What is the evidentiary value of medical evidence regarding the identification and culpability of an accused?
  Read full judgment →
• JAHANZAIB Versus State2021 PCrLJN 2 · Balochistan High Court · 2020-08-25
  guilty pleaprocedural irregularityanti-terrorismfair trialdefective chargeremandcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges a conviction and sentence imposed by an Anti-Terrorism Court following the appellant's plea of guilt. The core legal questions concern whether a conviction based on a guilty plea is sustainable when the trial court fails to comply with mandatory procedural requirements, specifically the provision of documents under Section 265, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, the failure to ensure legal representation for the accused, and the framing of a defective charge lacking the essential ingredients of the alleged offences. The Court held that the trial court's failure to provide the mandatory case documents and ensure legal representation constituted a serious illegality rather than a mere irregularity, vitiating the trial. Furthermore, the Court determined that a conviction cannot be sustained on a plea of guilt where the charge is defective and fails to disclose the essential ingredients of the offence. Consequently, the conviction was set aside, and the case was remanded for a fresh trial in accordance with the law.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure of a trial court to provide the accused with copies of the police report and witness statements as required by law vitiate a conviction based on a plea of guilt?
  • Can a conviction be sustained on a plea of guilt if the charge framed fails to include the essential ingredients of the offence?
  • Does Section 412 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 prevent a High Court from examining the legality of a conviction where the trial court committed serious procedural illegalities?
  • Is the failure to appoint or offer counsel to an accused in a criminal trial a mere irregularity or a serious illegality?
  Read full judgment →
• AMEER BAKHSH Versus State2019 PCrLJN 71 · Balochistan High Court · 2018-12-27
  criminal appealmurderhostile witnessbenefit of doubtidentification of accusedacquittalappreciation of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellants, Ameer Bakhsh and Wali Muhammad, who were convicted by the trial court under section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of Band Ali. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had sufficiently established the appellants' guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, given that the material prosecution witnesses—the complainant and two eye-witnesses—failed to identify the appellants as the assailants during the trial and were subsequently declared hostile. The Court held that the prosecution failed to connect the appellants to the crime, noting the absence of incriminating evidence, such as weapon recovery or confessions, and the insufficiency of the Medico-Legal Certificate to identify culprits. Furthermore, the Court observed that a co-accused facing similar allegations had previously been acquitted. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction, extending the benefit of the doubt to the appellants. The key principle laid down is that where material witnesses turn hostile and fail to identify the accused, and no other corroborative evidence exists to link the accused to the crime, the prosecution's case collapses, necessitating acquittal.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure of material eye-witnesses to identify the accused at trial, resulting in them being declared hostile, warrant an acquittal?
  • Is a Medico-Legal Certificate sufficient evidence to connect an accused to a murder charge in the absence of other corroborating evidence?
  • Are appellants entitled to acquittal when a co-accused with similar allegations has already been acquitted by the High Court?
  Read full judgment →
• GHULAM HABIB Versus State2018 PCrLJN 213 · Balochistan High Court · 2018-05-29
  criminal appealinjured witnessjudicial confessionmurderappraisal of evidenceconvictionstamped witness
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellant for the murder of his son and causing injury to his wife. The core legal question is whether the prosecution successfully established the appellant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt through the provided evidence, including the testimony of an injured witness, a judicial confession, and the recovery of the crime weapon. The Court held that the prosecution's case was solid and consistent. The testimony of the complainant, who was an injured witness, carried significant weight and a built-in guarantee of presence at the scene, making it highly reliable. Furthermore, the appellant's voluntary judicial confession and the recovery of the weapon from his possession corroborated the ocular account. The Court affirmed the conviction, ruling that the trial court correctly appraised the evidence. The key principle laid down is that the testimony of an injured witness is accorded special status in law, and unless there is strong, convincing evidence to the contrary, such testimony is sufficient to sustain a conviction, especially when corroborated by medical evidence and other incriminating circumstances.

  Questions settled

  • Does the testimony of an injured witness carry a special status in criminal law?
  • Can a conviction be sustained on the basis of a solitary injured witness if corroborated by medical evidence?
  • What are the essential requirements for accepting a judicial confession as evidence?
  • Does the abscondence of an accused after the commission of a crime strengthen the prosecution's case?
  Read full judgment →
• NAZAR MUHAMMAD Versus State2018 PCrLJN 106 · Balochistan High Court · 2017-10-16
  dishonoured chequeSection 489-F PPCcriminal liabilitymens reafraudburden of proofcriminal revision
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition challenged the conviction and sentence of the petitioner under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, regarding the alleged issuance of dishonoured cheques. The core legal question was whether the mere dishonour of a cheque constitutes a criminal offence under Section 489-F, PPC, in the absence of proof of an underlying business transaction or liability. The High Court observed that the prosecution failed to produce any documentary evidence, such as agreements or receipts, to substantiate the alleged vehicle sale transaction. The Court held that Section 489-F, PPC requires the existence of a valid underlying transaction creating an instant liability, and that the element of 'dishonesty' (mens rea) must be established. Since the prosecution failed to prove any meaningful transaction or dishonest intent, the conviction could not be sustained. Consequently, the Court set aside the judgments of the lower courts, acquitted the petitioner, and dismissed the connected criminal acquittal appeal and the revision petition for enhancement of sentence.

  Questions settled

  • Does the mere dishonour of a cheque constitute an offence under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 without proof of an underlying transaction?
  • Is the existence of a valid underlying business transaction a prerequisite for establishing criminal liability under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Does the term 'dishonestly' in Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 require proof of mens rea beyond the mere act of issuing a cheque that is subsequently dishonoured?
  Read full judgment →
• FAZAL KARIM Versus MUHAMMAD SADIQUE2020 CLCN 9 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2019-02-21Read full judgment →
• Syed BASHIR HUSSAIN SHAH Versus Mst. SHAMIM AKHTER2020 CLCN 7 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2019-03-08Read full judgment →
• GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN through Deputy Military Estate Officer, Muzaffarabad Versus Dr. NAJEEB NAQI2020 CLCN 35 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2020-02-14Read full judgment →
• NEELUM JHELUM HYDRO ELECTRIC PROJECT Versus Sardar NASRULLAH KHAN2020 CLCN 15 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2019-03-14Read full judgment →
• AZAD GOVERNMENT OF THE STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR Versus MUHAMMAD HANIF KHAN2020 CLCN 13 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2019-04-17Read full judgment →
• GHULAM RASUL Versus MOHAMMAD SHAMIM KHAN2020 CLCN 11 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2019-02-20Read full judgment →
• HAMEED MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN Versus ZIA HASHMI2019 CLCN 57 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2018-11-29Read full judgment →
• Mst. AKBAR JAN Versus GULDAD KHAN2019 CLCN 33 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2018-11-30Read full judgment →
• Raja KHALID MEHMOOD KHAN Versus MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN2019 CLCN 26 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2018-07-04Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SALEEM KHAN Versus QASIM KHAN2018 CLCN 127 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2018-04-24Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SARWAR Versus U FONE through Director, Islamabad2018 CLCN 124 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2018-05-08Read full judgment →
• RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE SATHRA through Hafiz Gohar Rehman Versus AZAD GOVERNMENT through Chief Secretary State of Azad Jammu and Kashmir2018 CLCN 119 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2018-05-15Read full judgment →
• FIDA ANWAR Versus AQIB JAVID2018 CLCN 111 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2018-03-13Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD MUMTAZ KHAN Versus MUHAMMAD AMIN2017 CLCN 93 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2013-03-27Read full judgment →
• MARAWAT KHAN Versus COLLECTOR LAND ACQUISITION, MANGLA DAM RAISING PROJECT, ZONE-I, MIRPUR2017 CLCN 89 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2013-04-23Read full judgment →
• MAQSOOD BIBI Versus COLLECTOR LAND ACQUISITION, MANGLA DAM RAISING PROJECT, MIRPUR (ZONE-I)2017 CLCN 85 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2013-04-10Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ABBAS KHAN Versus MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE KHAN2017 CLCN 78 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2013-04-22Read full judgment →
• Mst. SHAMIM AKHTAR Versus MOHAMMAD SHAFI2017 CLCN 71 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2013-05-27Read full judgment →
• WAPDA through Chief Engineer, Mangla Dam Raising Project, WAPDA, Mangla Versus Sardar ASIF AYUB KHAN2017 CLCN 66 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2013-04-13Read full judgment →
• ZAHOOR AHMED Versus MUHAMMAD MEHRBAN2017 CLCN 229 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2017-07-06Read full judgment →
• MARIAM BIBI Versus HAKAM ALI2017 CLCN 223 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2017-06-14Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD MOBEEN KHAN Versus FARZAND BEGUM2017 CLCN 146 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2013-10-31Read full judgment →
• CHIEF ADMINISTRATOR AUQAF AZAD JAMMU AND KASHMIR, MUZAFFARABAD Versus KARRAM HUSSAIN2017 CLCN 133 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2013-05-31Read full judgment →
• VICE-CHANCELLOR, AZAD JAMMU AND KASHMIR UNIVERSITY, MUZAFFARABAD Versus AZEEM DAD KHAN2017 CLCN 130 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2017-04-12Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SALEEM KHAN Versus MUHAMMAD FAYYAZ KHAN2017 CLCN 127 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2013-04-16Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD YAQUB Versus ZAMAN ALI2017 CLCN 124 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2013-08-29Read full judgment →
• LIAQAT ALI GILLANI Versus KHALIL AHMED BUTT2017 CLCN 122 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2013-07-03Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SHAKOOR Versus ZAROOB KHAN ZAHIDI2017 CLCN 119 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2013-02-18Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD HANIF Versus MUHAMMAD SADIQ2017 CLCN 113 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2016-12-13Read full judgment →
• MUKHTAR HUSAIN Versus FARHAT BIBI2017 CLCN 101 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2017-04-13Read full judgment →
• REHAN AHMED BAIG Versus Mst. SABEEN NAZ2020 CLCN 8 · Sindh High Court · 2019-05-06Read full judgment →
• SHAM KUMAR Versus ULFAT SHAHEEN2020 CLCN 51 · Sindh High Court · 2020-06-10Read full judgment →
• ABDUL RAUF Versus MUHAMMAD AMIN LAKHANI2020 CLCN 47 · Sindh High Court · 2019-12-23Read full judgment →
• GHULAM NABI QURESHI Versus GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN through Secretary Ministry of Defence2020 CLCN 45 · Sindh High Court · 2019-06-19Read full judgment →
• Mst. FARHANA MANSOOR Versus PROVINCE OF SINDH2020 CLCN 43 · Sindh High Court · 2019-01-28Read full judgment →
• MCB BANK LIMITED Versus EMADUL HASSAN2020 CLCN 42 · Sindh High Court · 2018-11-01Read full judgment →
• SAEEDA SALAHUDDIN Versus Flight Lt. (Retd.) FAROUK AZIZ EFFENDI (LATE)2020 CLCN 40 · Sindh High Court · 2019-04-24Read full judgment →
• UNITED BANK LIMITED Versus MOHAMMAD SIDDIQ BAWA GADIT2020 CLCN 38 · Sindh High Court · 2020-01-30Read full judgment →
• INTERFLOW COMMUNICATION (PVT.) LTD. Versus AAMIR ALI2020 CLCN 33 · Sindh High Court · 2020-02-25Read full judgment →
• SHAFIQ-UD-DIN Versus Mst. SHAHIDA GHAZAL2020 CLCN 29 · Sindh High Court · 2019-11-13Read full judgment →
• MUNEER AHMED SIYAL Versus PROVINCE OF SINDH through Secretary Revenue, Sindh Secretariat, Karachi2020 CLCN 27 · Sindh High Court · 2019-05-15Read full judgment →