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.
- NAHEED AKHTAR Versus State2014 GBLR 106 · Supreme Appellate Court Gilgit Baltistan · 2013-11-20Read full judgment →
- PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT through Chief Secretary Gilgit-Baltistan Versus Mrs. SHABANA SHAFA EST (BS-14)2014 GBLR 101 · Supreme Appellate Court Gilgit Baltistan · 2013-10-09Read full judgment →
- The WATER AND POWER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (WAPDA) Versus AHLIAN-E-SAT PARA SKARDU Muhammad Shafi , Muhammad Issa2014 GBLR 100 · Supreme Appellate Court Gilgit Baltistan · 2013-10-09Read full judgment →
- RESIDENTS OF CHAPORTE BALA through Representatives Versus RESIDENTS OF CHAPROTE PAIN through Representatives Muhammad Issa2010 GBLR 98 · Supreme Appellate Court Gilgit Baltistan · 2009-07-07Read full judgment →
- PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT through Chief Secretary N.A. Gilgit Versus KEHKASHAN BEGUM2010 GBLR 95 · Supreme Appellate Court Gilgit Baltistan · 2009-07-07Read full judgment →
- PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT through Chief Secretary Northern Areas, Gilgit Versus KHALIDA KHANUM2010 GBLR 92 · Supreme Appellate Court Gilgit Baltistan · 2009-10-28Read full judgment →
- MCB BANK LIMITED through President, MCB Chambers, Karachi Versus RIZWAN ALI KHAN2010 GBLR 88 · Supreme Appellate Court Gilgit Baltistan · 2009-10-19Read full judgment →
- ALI SARWAR Versus Mst. MARYUM2010 GBLR 86 · Supreme Appellate Court Gilgit Baltistan · 2009-07-07Read full judgment →
- GUL NAYAB SHAH Versus NAMKEEN SHAH2010 GBLR 84 · Supreme Appellate Court Gilgit Baltistan · 2009-06-15Read full judgment →
- KHUSH MALIK Versus State Sharif Ahmed2010 GBLR 83 · Supreme Appellate Court Gilgit Baltistan · 2009-08-20Read full judgment →
- KAMARAN KHAN Versus SECRETARY FOR KASHMIR AND NORTHERN AREAS AFFAIRS, ISLAMABAD2010 GBLR 79 · Supreme Appellate Court Gilgit Baltistan · 2009-08-19Read full judgment →
- MALOOK KHAN Versus State Malik Haq Nawaz2010 GBLR 75 · Supreme Appellate Court Gilgit Baltistan · 2009-06-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail in a murder case involving sections 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and section 13 of the Arms Ordinance 1965. The petitioners challenged the refusal of bail by the Chief Court, Northern Areas, arguing that they were assigned a collective role of firing alongside co-accused who were previously discharged by the police, thereby entitling them to bail under the principle of further inquiry. The Court observed that the investigation was conducted dishonestly, as co-accused were declared innocent based on the same evidence used to implicate the petitioners. Furthermore, the prosecution lacked medical evidence regarding the cause of death and forensic reports for the recovered weapons. The Court held that where the prosecution's evidence is not confidence-inspiring or fails to distinguish the accused from discharged co-accused, the case falls within the ambit of section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Consequently, the Court granted bail, emphasizing that the scope of further inquiry depends on the specific facts and circumstances of each case.
Questions settled- Does the granting of bail under the principle of further inquiry depend on a general rule or the specific facts and circumstances of the case?
- Can an accused be entitled to bail when the prosecution's evidence fails to distinguish their role from that of co-accused who have already been discharged?
- Does the absence of medical evidence and forensic reports regarding recovered weapons constitute grounds for further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- AHALIAN DAYIN Versus MIRZA2010 GBLR 73 · Supreme Appellate Court Gilgit Baltistan · 2009-11-11Read full judgment →
- RAZA Versus GHULAM HAIDER2010 GBLR 69 · Supreme Appellate Court Gilgit Baltistan · 2009-07-02Read full judgment →
- UPGRADATION OF JUDICIAL OFFICERS/STAFF AND ALLOWANCES ETC. Versus2010 GBLR 64 · Supreme Appellate Court Gilgit Baltistan · 2009-11-16Read full judgment →
- GHULAM NABI Versus State2010 GBLR 62 · Supreme Appellate Court Gilgit Baltistan · 2009-09-15Read full judgment →
- SETTLEMENT OFFICER GILGIT Versus MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN2010 GBLR 59 · Supreme Appellate Court Gilgit Baltistan · 2009-06-10Read full judgment →
- CHIEF SECRETARY, GILGIT-BALTISTAN Versus ABDUL GHANI2010 GBLR 582 · Supreme Appellate Court Gilgit Baltistan · 2010-07-06Read full judgment →
- MIRZA MUHAMMAD Versus State2010 GBLR 576 · Supreme Appellate Court Gilgit Baltistan · 2010-08-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns cross-appeals arising from a murder conviction where the trial court sentenced two accused to death for the murder of Haji Muhammad. The core legal questions involved the reliability of ocular evidence, the distinction in culpability between co-accused, and the appropriateness of the death penalty given the circumstances of the occurrence. The Supreme Appellate Court Gilgit-Baltistan held that the prosecution successfully proved the guilt of the petitioner, Mirza Muhammad, through consistent and trustworthy eye-witness testimony, while maintaining the acquittal of the co-accused, Muhammad Sadiq, whose specific role was not established with the same clarity. Regarding sentencing, the Court established the principle that where a murder arises from a sudden fight without evidence of pre-planning or deep-rooted hostility, the death penalty is not mandatory. Consequently, the Court upheld the conviction of Mirza Muhammad but commuted his death sentence to imprisonment for life, citing the lack of premeditation as an extenuating circumstance. The Court also affirmed the acquittal of the co-accused and ordered the payment of compensation to the legal heirs.
Questions settled- Can the death sentence be commuted to life imprisonment when a murder results from a sudden fight rather than pre-planned hostility?
- Is the testimony of eye-witnesses who were not named in the initial First Information Report less reliable than those who were?
- Does the acquittal of a co-accused necessarily invalidate the conviction of the principal accused in a joint murder charge?
- Are the legal heirs of a deceased entitled to compensation under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 in a murder case?
- ALL GILGIT BALTISTAN WORKERS' TRADE UNION FEDERATION Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Kashmir Affairs and Northern Areas Division, Islamabad2010 GBLR 56 · Supreme Appellate Court Gilgit Baltistan · 2009-08-24Read full judgment →
- SHER ALI Versus THE STATE2010 GBLR 567 · Supreme Appellate Court Gilgit Baltistan · 2010-09-28Read full judgment →
- RAHIMULLAH Versus State2010 GBLR 560 · Supreme Appellate Court Gilgit Baltistan · 2010-10-13Read full judgment →
- JAMSHID ALI Versus CHIEF SECRETARY GILGIT-BALTISTAN2010 GBLR 558 · Supreme Appellate Court Gilgit Baltistan · 2010-07-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioners filed a review petition challenging an interim order of the Division Bench and a letter recommending the ante-date promotion of a third party, which led to office objections by the Registrar. Following the Registrar's direction, the petitioners preferred an appeal against the legal objections under the Supreme Appellate Court Rules, 2008. The Supreme Appellate Court held that the appeal against the Registrar's objections and the review petition against an interlocutory order were not maintainable, as the impugned order was purely interlocutory, did not affect final rights, and the petitioners were not parties to the sub-judice contempt proceedings. The court emphasized that third parties cannot intervene in contempt proceedings and that any apprehension regarding an order directing consideration in accordance with law is premature. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether an appeal against the legal objections raised by the Registrar of the Supreme Appellate Court is maintainable?
- Can a third party intervene or file a review petition against interlocutory orders passed in sub-judice contempt proceedings?
- Whether a review petition is competent against an interlocutory order that has not attained finality?
- THE STATE Versus SADAQAT JAN2010 GBLR 550 · Supreme Appellate Court Gilgit Baltistan · 2010-10-12Read full judgment →
- State Versus ZAHOOQ2010 GBLR 54 · Supreme Appellate Court Gilgit Baltistan · 2009-06-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is an application for the cancellation of bail filed by the State against the order of the Chief Court Northern Areas, which had enlarged the respondent on bail under the rule of consistency in a case involving gang rape of a minor girl. The core legal question was whether bail was rightly granted to the accused charged with an offence falling within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and section 10(4) of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, where the accused was directly nominated in the F.I.R., supported by a positive medico-legal report and the victim's statement. The Supreme Appellate Court Gilgit Baltistan held that bail in non-bailable heinous offences punishable with death or life imprisonment cannot be claimed as of right and should not be granted when the material connects the accused to the crime. The court laid down the principle that discretionary orders granting bail improperly can be interfered with by the apex court, and the rule of consistency does not apply where the accused is directly charged with a capital offence supported by corroborative medical and testimonial evidence.
Questions settled- Can bail be granted in a non-bailable offence punishable with death or life imprisonment when the accused is directly nominated and supported by corroborative medical evidence?
- Whether the Supreme Appellate Court can interfere with the discretionary order of the Chief Court granting bail if the jurisdiction was not properly exercised?
- Does the rule of consistency apply to grant bail to an accused directly charged with a heinous offence like Zina under section 10(4) of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979?
- ASSISTANT COLLECTOR CUSTOMS, SUST GOJAL Versus Syed MUHAMMAD RIAZ2010 GBLR 545 · Supreme Appellate Court Gilgit Baltistan · 2010-07-08Read full judgment →
- SUO MOTU CASE NO. 14 OF 2009 Versus2010 GBLR 50 · Supreme Appellate Court Gilgit Baltistan · 2009-11-19Read full judgment →
- SHAHEEN SHAH Versus MUHAMMAD HASSAN2010 GBLR 46 · Supreme Appellate Court Gilgit Baltistan · 2009-09-03Read full judgment →
- FAHIM HAIDER Versus GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN through Secretary KA&GB Affairs2010 GBLR 467 · Supreme Appellate Court Gilgit Baltistan · 2010-06-11Read full judgment →
- JAN MUHAMMAD Versus MUHAMMAD MUSA2010 GBLR 463 · Supreme Appellate Court Gilgit Baltistan · 2010-07-07Read full judgment →
- PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT OF GILGIT-BALTISTAN Versus TAHIRA BEGUM2010 GBLR 460 · Supreme Appellate Court Gilgit Baltistan · 2010-09-28Read full judgment →
- 2010 GBLR 4502010 GBLR 450 · Supreme Appellate Court Gilgit Baltistan · 2010-10-05Read full judgment →
- SUO MOTU CASE NO.1 OF 2008 Versus2010 GBLR 436 · Supreme Appellate Court Gilgit Baltistan · 2010-03-16Read full judgment →
- SUO MOTU CASES NOS. 16 AND 17 OF 2010 Versus2010 GBLR 432 · Supreme Appellate Court Gilgit Baltistan · 2010-10-07Read full judgment →
- GHUFRAN GUL Versus IMDAD HUSSAIN2010 GBLR 430 · Supreme Appellate Court Gilgit Baltistan · 2010-11-11Read full judgment →
- ZAHEER KHAN Versus PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT through Chief Secretary, Gilgit-Baltistan Malik Shafqat Wali Sr. Advocate and Ali Nazar2010 GBLR 429 · Supreme Appellate Court Gilgit Baltistan · 2010-07-07Read full judgment →
- SUO MOTU CASE NO.9 OF 2009 Versus2010 GBLR 427 · Supreme Appellate Court Gilgit Baltistan · 2010-10-25Read full judgment →
- HASAN SADPARA Versus GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN through Ministry of Defence2010 GBLR 426 · Supreme Appellate Court Gilgit Baltistan · 2010-10-28Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD NASIM Versus ZAFAR IQBAL2010 GBLR 425 · Supreme Appellate Court Gilgit Baltistan · 2010-10-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter originated as a contempt application arising from the non-implementation of a previous judgment of the Supreme Appellate Court Gilgit Baltistan dated 8th June 2010 in C.P.L.A. No 2 of 2010. The petitioner sought relief regarding the payment of dues following his removal from service. During the proceedings, the respondent, represented by the Managing Director of NATCO, submitted an Office Order dated 8th October 2010, which demonstrated compliance with the court's earlier directive to pay the petitioner's dues from the date of his removal. Upon reviewing this document, the petitioner acknowledged that his grievance had been redressed and expressed a desire to withdraw the contempt application. Consequently, the Court disposed of the contempt application as satisfied, while issuing a specific directive to the respondent to ensure the payment of the petitioner's dues is executed without any further delay.
Questions settled- Can a contempt application be disposed of if the underlying grievance is redressed during proceedings?
- Does the implementation of a court order regarding service dues render a contempt petition infructuous?
- ZAFAR IQBAL MD NACTO, GILGIT-BALTISTAN Versus MUHAMMAD NASEEM2010 GBLR 424 · Supreme Appellate Court Gilgit Baltistan · 2010-10-04Read full judgment →
- PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT through Chief Secretary, Gilgit-Baltistan Versus SAFAR KHAN2010 GBLR 423 · Supreme Appellate Court Gilgit Baltistan · 2010-11-04Read full judgment →
- INAM-UL-HAQUE Versus State2010 GBLR 422 · Supreme Appellate Court Gilgit Baltistan · 2010-07-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter comes before the Supreme Appellate Court of Gilgit Baltistan upon a petition for leave to appeal or petition arising from the dismissal of a bail application. The core legal question concerns the maintainability of a petition before the Supreme Appellate Court when the preceding bail application before the Chief Court was not adjudicated on its merits but was instead dismissed as withdrawn. The court held that the petition is not maintainable under such circumstances. The key principle laid down is that a petitioner cannot approach the appellate court when the lower court's dismissal of the bail application was based on withdrawal rather than a decision on the merits, leaving the petitioner to pursue a fresh bail application before the appropriate trial or chief court.
Questions settled- Is a petition before the Supreme Appellate Court maintainable if the bail application before the Chief Court was dismissed as withdrawn rather than decided on merits?
- What is the appropriate remedy for a petitioner whose bail application before the Chief Court was dismissed as withdrawn?
- SUO MOTU CASE NO. 6 OF 2010 Versus2010 GBLR 420 · Supreme Appellate Court Gilgit Baltistan · 2010-11-11Read full judgment →
- SUO MOTU CASE NO.5 OF 2009 Versus2010 GBLR 419 · Supreme Appellate Court Gilgit Baltistan · 2010-10-25Read full judgment →
- SUO MOTU CASE NO.1 OF 2009 Versus2010 GBLR 418 · Supreme Appellate Court Gilgit Baltistan · 2010-11-12Read full judgment →
- QAMAR ABBAS Versus VICE CHANCELLOR KIU2010 GBLR 417 · Supreme Appellate Court Gilgit Baltistan · 2010-09-28Read full judgment →
- SUO MOTU CASE NO.9 OF 2010 Versus2010 GBLR 416 · Supreme Appellate Court Gilgit Baltistan · 2010-11-12Read full judgment →
- SUO MOTU CASE NO.8 OF 2010 Versus2010 GBLR 414 · Supreme Appellate Court Gilgit Baltistan · 2010-10-06Read full judgment →
- ABDUL GHANI Versus CHIEF SECRETARY, GILGIT-BALTISTAN2010 GBLR 413 · Supreme Appellate Court Gilgit Baltistan · 2010-09-29Read full judgment →
- State Versus KHAN BIBI alias KHANI2010 GBLR 412 · Supreme Appellate Court Gilgit Baltistan · 2010-09-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The State filed a petition for the cancellation of bail granted by the Chief Court to the respondent, who is an accused in the murder of her husband. The core legal question was whether the respondent's bail should be cancelled based on the circumstantial evidence and the statement of her minor son alleging illicit relations and conspiracy. The Supreme Appellate Court held that the occurrence was unseen with no direct evidence, and the mere suspicion or statement regarding illicit relations was insufficient to withhold bail or warrant interference with the Chief Court's order. The court concluded that the case fell within the ambit for further inquiry under the relevant statutory provisions, thereby dismissing the State's petition for bail cancellation.
Questions settled- Whether indirect or circumstantial evidence of suspicion is sufficient to withhold bail in an unseen murder occurrence?
- Can bail granted by the Chief Court under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 be interfered with based on a statement under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 alleging illicit relations?
- Does the lack of direct evidence bring a case within the scope of further inquiry for the purpose of bail?
- SUO MOTU CASE NO.12 OF 2009 Versus2010 GBLR 390 · Supreme Appellate Court Gilgit Baltistan · 2010-11-08Read full judgment →
- SUO MOTU CASE NO.4 OF 2009 Versus2010 GBLR 379 · Supreme Appellate Court Gilgit Baltistan · 2010-10-06Read full judgment →
- AMIR SHAH Versus Mst. KHOSH JOOR Johar Ali2010 GBLR 377 · Supreme Appellate Court Gilgit Baltistan · 2010-08-05Read full judgment →
- SHER AZAM Versus State Malik Haq Nawaz2010 GBLR 375 · Supreme Appellate Court Gilgit Baltistan · 2010-08-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter comes before the Supreme Appellate Court Gilgit Baltistan upon a petition where the counsel for the petitioners requested a direction for the expeditious conclusion of the trial rather than pressing for bail, noting that the trial was near completion except for a few formal witnesses, but was stalled due to the persistent absence of the District Attorney. The core legal question addressed is whether the court can issue directions for the speedy conclusion of a criminal trial when delayed by prosecution negligence, and what remedies are available to incarcerated accused persons. The court held that the prosecution cannot be permitted to prolong trials at the cost of the accused's liberty and agony, and directed the trial court to conclude the proceedings within two months using coercive measures for witness attendance, failing which the petitioners would be at liberty to renew their bail application. The key principle laid down is that the state and prosecution must ensure timely conclusion of criminal trials, and prolonged incarceration due to prosecution delays warrants strict judicial oversight and potential remedial action.
Questions settled- Whether the court can direct the expeditious conclusion of a criminal trial when delayed by the absence of the District Attorney?
- What remedies are available to incarcerated accused persons if a trial is not concluded within the specified timeframe?
- Can the Home Secretary take action against a District Attorney whose negligence causes delays in a criminal trial?
- NIAMAT KHAN through Legal Representatives Versus SECRETARY, KASHMIR AFFAIRS AND NORTHERN AREAS AFFAIRS, ISLAMABAD2010 GBLR 370 · Supreme Appellate Court Gilgit Baltistan · 2010-10-25Read full judgment →
- SUO MOTU CASE RCC CHINA BRIDGE Versus2010 GBLR 36 · Supreme Appellate Court Gilgit Baltistan · 2009-07-07Read full judgment →
- SUO MOTU CASE NO.1 OF 2007 Versus2010 GBLR 364 · Supreme Appellate Court Gilgit Baltistan · 2010-11-02Read full judgment →
- SUO MOTU CASE NO.11 OF 2009 Versus Mr. Amjad Hussain2010 GBLR 362 · Supreme Appellate Court Gilgit Baltistan · 2010-09-30Read full judgment →
- SAFA Versus State2010 GBLR 35 · Supreme Appellate Court Gilgit Baltistan · 2009-07-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a bail petition filed by several petitioners seeking pre-trial release in a criminal case involving charges of firing, injury, and death. The petitioners argued that Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 (common intention) was inapplicable to them, asserting that they lacked the requisite common intention to commit the offense of Qatl-e-amd, and thus, conviction under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 was unlikely. The Court, upon a tentative assessment of the available record, observed that the petitioners were directly charged in the First Information Report with active participation in the occurrence. The Court held that the determination of common intention is a factual issue that must be resolved at trial based on the evidence presented, rather than at the bail stage. Consequently, the Court declined to express a view on the merits of the case and dismissed the petition, emphasizing that questions of common intention are unsuitable for resolution during preliminary bail proceedings.
Questions settled- Can the question of common intention under Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 be determined at the bail stage?
- Is a tentative assessment of evidence sufficient to deny bail when the accused is directly charged in the First Information Report?
- ABDUL GHAFOOR Versus GHULAM MUHAMMAD2010 GBLR 356 · Supreme Appellate Court Gilgit Baltistan · 2010-06-30Read full judgment →
- Syed JABBAR Versus State2010 GBLR 353 · Supreme Appellate Court Gilgit Baltistan · 2010-08-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a second bail application filed by petitioners facing trial for charges under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioners sought bail, arguing that the trial was unnecessarily delayed due to a transfer application filed by the complainant and that the evidence recorded thus far did not warrant further detention. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to bail given the stage of the trial and whether previous judicial observations regarding the merits of the case were appropriate. The Supreme Appellate Court Gilgit-Baltistan held that the Chief Court's prior observations regarding the merits of the evidence were out of context and ordered them expunged to avoid prejudice. The Court emphasized that the expeditious disposal of criminal cases involving capital punishment is a fundamental right of the accused. It directed the Chief Court to decide the pending transfer application on priority and ordered the trial court to conduct day-to-day proceedings to conclude the trial within one month, establishing the principle that prosecution or complainants must not use delaying tactics to prolong detention.
Questions settled- Does the right to an expeditious trial for an accused facing capital punishment prohibit the use of delaying tactics by the prosecution or complainant?
- Can a superior court expunge observations made by a lower court that are deemed out of context and potentially prejudicial to the merits of a pending trial?
- Is it appropriate for a court to order a day-to-day trial to ensure the conclusion of proceedings within a specified timeframe?
- Haji GHULAM HUSAN Versus Haji QASIM2010 GBLR 351 · Supreme Appellate Court Gilgit Baltistan · 2010-10-27Read full judgment →
- PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT through Chief Secretary, Gilgit-Baltistan Versus SADAR AZAM2010 GBLR 347 · Supreme Appellate Court Gilgit Baltistan · 2010-05-05Read full judgment →
- JUMMA SYED Versus PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT through Chief Secretary Gilgit-Baltistan2010 GBLR 345 · Supreme Appellate Court Gilgit Baltistan · 2010-06-23Read full judgment →
- Haji GHULAM MEHDI Versus PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT through Chief Secretary Gilgit-Baltistan2010 GBLR 343 · Supreme Appellate Court Gilgit Baltistan · 2010-06-23Read full judgment →
- Lt.-Col. ARSHAD MEHMOOD CH. Versus KIU2010 GBLR 341 · Supreme Appellate Court Gilgit Baltistan · 2010-06-08Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD AMIN BALGHARI Versus PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT2010 GBLR 340 · Supreme Appellate Court Gilgit Baltistan · 2010-05-04Read full judgment →
- SHAB RUNG Versus State2010 GBLR 33 · Supreme Appellate Court Gilgit Baltistan · 2009-10-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against the refusal of bail by the Chief Court of Gilgit-Baltistan in a criminal case registered under Section 457 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and Section 9/14 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to post-arrest bail given the alleged lack of incriminating recovery and the circumstances surrounding the incident. The Supreme Appellate Court of Gilgit-Baltistan allowed the appeal and granted bail, holding that the prosecution's case was doubtful due to the failure of witnesses present at the scene to apprehend the accused or report the incident promptly, and the absence of any incriminating recovery from the petitioner's possession. The Court established the principle that where the prosecution's narrative is inherently improbable—specifically regarding the failure of guards to intervene during a prolonged incident—and where no recovery is linked to the accused, the case against the accused warrants further inquiry, thereby entitling the accused to the concession of bail.
Questions settled- Whether the failure of prosecution witnesses to apprehend suspects during the commission of an alleged crime renders the prosecution's case doubtful for the purpose of bail?
- Does the absence of incriminating recovery from the possession of an accused entitle them to the concession of bail?
- Can a petition for leave to appeal be converted into an appeal to grant bail?
- OFFICER COMMANDING 182 PETROLEUM STORAGE PLATOON ARMY SERVICE JUGLOT, GILGIT Versus ALI MUHAMMAD2010 GBLR 336 · Supreme Appellate Court Gilgit Baltistan · 2010-06-16Read full judgment →
- PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT through Chief Secretary, Gilgit-Baltistan Versus KHALID MEHMOOD Ali Nazar2010 GBLR 335 · Supreme Appellate Court Gilgit Baltistan · 2010-03-16Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD GHAFAR Versus ZAMINDARAN BIRGAL2010 GBLR 333 · Supreme Appellate Court Gilgit Baltistan · 2010-05-06Read full judgment →
- MEHBOOB ALAM LONE Versus CHIEF JUDGE GILGIT-BALTISTAN CHIEF COURT, GILGIT Shafqat Wali2010 GBLR 332 · Supreme Appellate Court Gilgit Baltistan · 2010-04-08Read full judgment →
- CLIC Versus PAK. CHINA C&MC. (PVT.) LTD.2010 GBLR 331 · Supreme Appellate Court Gilgit Baltistan · 2010-06-22Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD Versus ABDUR REHMAN Muhammad Issa , Shoukat Ali2010 GBLR 330 · Supreme Appellate Court Gilgit Baltistan · 2010-06-30Read full judgment →
- SECRETARY FOR KASHMIR AND NORTHERN AREAS AFFAIRS, ISLAMABAD Versus KAMRAN KHAN2010 GBLR 32 · Supreme Appellate Court Gilgit Baltistan · 2009-10-28Read full judgment →
- Syed SAROOSH HAIDER RIZVI Versus NAB2010 GBLR 329 · Supreme Appellate Court Gilgit Baltistan · 2009-10-29Read full judgment →
- TAJAN Versus ABDUL MAJEED Malik Haq Nawaz , Jouhar Ali2010 GBLR 328 · Supreme Appellate Court Gilgit Baltistan · 2010-04-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenged an order passed by the Chief Court of Gilgit-Baltistan, which transferred a Sessions Case from the Additional Sessions Judge, Diamer, to the Sessions Judge, Gilgit. The transfer was originally sought by the complainant on grounds of personal inconvenience and alleged threats to his life posed by the accused, who was described as an influential local figure. The core legal question was whether the Chief Court exercised its discretionary power to transfer cases judiciously and upon valid, reasoned grounds. Upon review, the Supreme Appellate Court found that both parties were non-residents of the area where the trial was originally pending, rendering the complainant's grounds for transfer unsubstantiated. Furthermore, the Court observed that the impugned order lacked sufficient reasoning. Consequently, the Supreme Appellate Court set aside the transfer order, holding that while the Chief Court possesses the authority to transfer cases between subordinate courts, such power must be exercised judiciously and supported by cogent, speaking reasons rather than arbitrary conclusions.
Questions settled- Does the Chief Court have the authority to transfer a case from one subordinate court to another?
- Is an order transferring a criminal case valid if it lacks sufficient reasoning?
- Can a transfer of a criminal case be granted solely on the basis of a party's inconvenience when both parties are non-residents of the trial venue?
- HASSAN SHAH Versus SHAHZADA KHAN2010 GBLR 326 · Supreme Appellate Court Gilgit Baltistan · 2010-04-26Read full judgment →
- GHULAM QADIR Versus GHULAM ABBAS Haji Jamal Khan2010 GBLR 325 · Supreme Appellate Court Gilgit Baltistan · 2010-05-18Read full judgment →
- JUDGES OF CHIEF COURT Versus Haji Mirza Ali2010 GBLR 322 · Supreme Appellate Court Gilgit Baltistan · 2010-06-07Read full judgment →
- ISLAMIC INVESTMENT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY, ALIABAD Versus SULTAN ISHAQ, EX. GENERAL MANAGER, ISLAMIC CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY2010 GBLR 317 · Supreme Appellate Court Gilgit Baltistan · 2010-05-04Read full judgment →
- SALAMAT JAN Versus DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, GILGIT2010 GBLR 314 · Supreme Appellate Court Gilgit Baltistan · 2010-05-06Read full judgment →
- GHULAM QADIR Versus GHULAM ABBAS2010 GBLR 311 · Supreme Appellate Court Gilgit Baltistan · 2010-03-31Read full judgment →
- NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN through Coordinator Sub-Region Office, Gilgit Versus KARIM AHMED SHAH2010 GBLR 305 · Supreme Appellate Court Gilgit Baltistan · 2010-03-17Read full judgment →
- State Versus SHAH HUSSAIN2010 GBLR 301 · Supreme Appellate Court Gilgit Baltistan · 2010-04-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal was filed by the State against the order of the Chief Court Gilgit-Baltistan granting post-arrest bail to the respondent in a criminal case registered under sections 447, 147, 427, 354, 336, and 337-A of the Pakistan Penal Code. The core legal question was whether the respondent was entitled to bail under the category of further inquiry within the meaning of section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, considering the severity of injuries and specific attribution in statements. The Supreme Appellate Court held that the offences fell within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure, and that the case was not one of further inquiry given the consistent witness statements, medical evidence, and recovery of crime weapons. Consequently, the court set aside the impugned order, recalled the bail granted to the respondent, and directed the trial court to conclude the proceedings within six months.
Questions settled- Whether an offence carrying a maximum sentence falling within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure disentitles an accused to bail?
- Can bail be cancelled when the accused is specifically charged by multiple witnesses and supported by medical evidence?
- Whether a case involving cross complaints and conflicting assertions regarding the aggressor necessarily qualifies as a case of further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure?
- JAMSHEED KHAN Versus PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT2010 GBLR 299 · Supreme Appellate Court Gilgit Baltistan · 2010-06-09Read full judgment →
- ASHFAQ Versus State2010 GBLR 295 · Supreme Appellate Court Gilgit Baltistan · 2010-04-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against the rejection of bail by the Chief Court of Gilgit-Baltistan in a criminal case involving charges under sections 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and sections 6/7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, who was not named in the initial F.I.R. but implicated later, was entitled to bail given that co-accused with similar allegations had already been granted bail. The Supreme Appellate Court of Gilgit-Baltistan held that the petitioner’s case was indistinguishable from that of the co-accused who had been released, noting that the prosecution failed to conduct an identification parade despite the injured witness's claim to be able to identify the assailants. Consequently, the Court granted bail, holding that the case required further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The key principle laid down is that a person otherwise entitled to bail cannot be denied the concession solely on the ground that the alleged offence is heinous or serious in nature.
Questions settled- Does the heinous nature of an offence, by itself, justify the denial of bail to an accused who is otherwise entitled to it?
- Is an accused entitled to bail on the rule of consistency when co-accused with similar allegations have already been granted bail?
- Does the failure of the prosecution to conduct an identification parade when an injured witness claims to be able to identify assailants constitute grounds for further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Syed MAZHAR ALI SHAH Versus VC KIU2010 GBLR 291 · Supreme Appellate Court Gilgit Baltistan · 2010-04-29Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD RAWAN Versus THE STATE through Police Station, Khanbery2010 GBLR 288 · Supreme Appellate Court Gilgit Baltistan · 2010-05-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner sought leave to appeal against the refusal of bail by the Chief Court of Gilgit-Baltistan in a case involving charges under sections 302, 324, 427, 431, and 353/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, read with section 13-A of the Arms Ordinance 1965. The petitioner argued for bail based on the rule of consistency, citing the release of a co-accused, and alleged delay in the trial. The Supreme Appellate Court of Gilgit-Baltistan examined the record, noting that the petitioner was directly charged in a promptly lodged FIR, the incident occurred in broad daylight, weapons were recovered upon the petitioner's pointation, and eyewitnesses, including injured persons, corroborated the incident. The Court held that a prima facie case existed against the petitioner. Regarding the rule of consistency, the Court noted that the co-accused's bail order was currently under challenge. Furthermore, the Court determined that the trial delay was not solely attributable to the prosecution. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition for leave to appeal, while directing the trial court to conclude proceedings within 120 days.
Questions settled- Does the grant of bail to a co-accused automatically entitle other co-accused to bail under the rule of consistency when that bail order is sub judice?
- Can a delay in the conclusion of a trial serve as a ground for bail when the delay is not solely attributable to the prosecution?
- Is bail appropriate when the accused is directly charged in a promptly lodged FIR with supporting recovery of weapons and eyewitness testimony?
- MUHAMMAD NASEEM Versus ZAFAR IQBAL, MD NATCO2010 GBLR 285 · Supreme Appellate Court Gilgit Baltistan · 2010-06-08Read full judgment →
- HAMAYOON KHAN Versus CHAIRMAN PAKISTAN TELECOMMUNICATION, ISLAMABAD2010 GBLR 281 · Supreme Appellate Court Gilgit Baltistan · 2010-05-04Read full judgment →
- SHAKIRULLAH alias DOCTOR Versus State2010 GBLR 280 · Supreme Appellate Court Gilgit Baltistan · 2010-04-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter originated as a petition before the Supreme Appellate Court of Gilgit Baltistan. The core legal question addressed concerned the appropriate forum for the petitioner to seek relief regarding their ongoing criminal trial, specifically whether the Chief Court of Gilgit Baltistan possessed the jurisdiction to entertain a writ petition in the circumstances. Upon being confronted with established legal precedents from the Supreme Court of Pakistan, specifically Khan Asfand Yar Wali Khan v. Federation of Pakistan and Abdul Aziz Khan Niazi v. The State, which clarify the availability of writ jurisdiction for such relief, the petitioner opted to withdraw the current petition to pursue the remedy before the Chief Court instead. Consequently, the Supreme Appellate Court disposed of the petition as not pressed. Furthermore, noting the inordinate delay in the trial proceedings, which had remained pending for four to five years without significant progress, the Court directed the trial Judge to submit a formal report to the Registrar regarding the causes of this delay within a fortnight for further consideration and appropriate orders in chambers.
Questions settled- Can a petitioner withdraw a matter before the Supreme Appellate Court to pursue relief via a writ petition in the Chief Court?
- Does the Supreme Appellate Court have the authority to monitor and request reports on the progress of pending trials in subordinate courts?
- KARAKORAM INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITY through Vice-Chancellor, Gilgit Versus FIDA HUSSAIN2010 GBLR 27 · Supreme Appellate Court Gilgit Baltistan · 2009-10-20Read full judgment →
- HAFIZ-UR-RAHMAN Versus State2010 GBLR 277 · Supreme Appellate Court Gilgit Baltistan · 2010-03-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition arises from an order passed by the Chief Court Gilgit-Baltistan rejecting the bail application of the petitioner in a case registered under sections 302/34/109 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The core legal question was whether the petitioner made out a case for further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, warranting the grant of post-arrest bail. The Supreme Appellate Court held that upon tentative assessment of the material, including conflicting statements of the star witness and lack of direct evidence connecting the petitioner to the crime or forensic corroboration of the weapon recovery, the case called for further inquiry into the guilt of the petitioner. The court laid down the principle that where material discrepancies and lack of direct incriminating evidence render the prosecution's case doubtful upon tentative assessment, the accused is entitled to the concession of bail under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure pending trial.
Questions settled- Whether contradictions in the statement of a star witness warrant further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure?
- Can bail be granted when there is no direct evidence connecting the accused to the alleged crime upon tentative assessment?
- Does the absence of a firearms expert report supporting weapon recovery justify the release of an accused on bail?
- State Versus MASHROOF2010 GBLR 276 · Supreme Appellate Court Gilgit Baltistan · 2010-06-14Read full judgment →
- MEHARBAN ALI Versus SHAKOOR KHAN2010 GBLR 271 · Supreme Appellate Court Gilgit Baltistan · 2010-04-29Read full judgment →
- 2010 GBLR 2702010 GBLR 270 · Supreme Appellate Court Gilgit Baltistan · 2010-06-08Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD RIAZ Versus CHIEF EXECUTIVE2010 GBLR 266 · Supreme Appellate Court Gilgit Baltistan · 2010-04-29Read full judgment →
- KHALID ALI Versus State2010 GBLR 263 · Supreme Appellate Court Gilgit Baltistan · 2010-04-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by Khalid Ali against the order of the Chief Court Gilgit-Baltistan, which declined him post-arrest bail in a case registered under section 324/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and section 13 of the Arms Ordinance. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to post-arrest bail on the ground of further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, given the lack of a firearms expert report linking the recovered weapon to the injuries and contradictory statements. The Supreme Appellate Court Gilgit-Baltistan held that due to the absence of a firearms expert report connecting the recovered pistol to the injuries and the tentative assessment showing a need to ascertain whose shot hit the victims, the case fell within the scope of further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The court laid down the principle that the absence of forensic ballistics verification regarding the weapon of offence, coupled with evidentiary discrepancies, can bring a case involving firearm injuries within the domain of further inquiry warranting the grant of bail.
Questions settled- Whether the absence of a firearms expert report connecting the recovered weapon to the injuries makes a case one of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Can bail be granted when the tentative assessment of the material fails to directly connect the accused to the fatal or specific injury?
- Is an accused entitled to post-arrest bail when contradictions exist in statements recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- State Versus KALAB ALI2010 GBLR 256 · Supreme Appellate Court Gilgit Baltistan · 2010-04-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Chief Court Gilgit-Baltistan which set aside the conviction and sentence of the respondents under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, resulting in their acquittal. The core legal questions involved the evidentiary value and voluntary nature of a retracted confessional statement recorded by a Second Class Magistrate, the competence of such a magistrate to record confessions, and the reliability of weapon recoveries. The Supreme Appellate Court held that the confessional statement was legally inadmissible and unreliable as it suffered from inherent procedural violations of section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, was not proved to be voluntary, and was recorded by an incompetent magistrate lacking jurisdiction. Furthermore, the court held that delayed dispatches and contradictions in weapon recoveries could not sustain a capital conviction. The appeal was accordingly dismissed, affirming the acquittal of the respondents.
Questions settled- Whether a Second Class Magistrate is empowered to record a confessional statement under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- What are the mandatory procedural formalities required to be observed by a magistrate before recording a voluntary confession?
- Can a retracted confessional statement recorded in violation of statutory safeguards serve as the sole basis for a conviction in a capital charge?
- Are delayed dispatches of recovered firearms and contradictory marginal witness testimony sufficient to establish guilt in the absence of ocular evidence?