Summary: Bail granted---Background:This case involves two criminal petitions (No. 1121 & 1128 of 2023) heard by the Supreme Court of Pakistan, arising from orders dated September 18, 2023, by the Lahore High Court, which dismissed the bail applications of Salman Mushtaq and another for pre-arrest bail, and Ahmar Ali for post-arrest bail. The petitions were lodged following an FIR (No. 1358/2023) under Section 365-B of the Pakistan Penal Code, accusing Salman Mushtaq and Naheed Akhtar of abducting Iqra Bibi for the purpose of rape, with later implications involving Iqra Bibi's brother, Ahmar Ali, based on her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C.----Issues:Whether the marriage between Iqra Bibi and Salman Mushtaq, claimed to be consensual and legally documented, should influence the bail decision.Whether the initial non-nomination of Ahmar Ali in the FIR, and subsequent implications based on the victim?s statement, casts doubt on the credibility of the abduction charge.Whether the lack of immediate medical examination to substantiate the rape allegations affects the strength of the prosecution's case.----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The Supreme Court granted bail to both petitioners. It was held that:The courts below did not adequately consider the consensual nature of the marriage between Iqra Bibi and Salman Mushtaq, as evidenced by legal documentation and witness testimonies, including that of the co-accused, Ahmar Ali.The FIR's delayed implication of Ahmar Ali based solely on the alleged victim's later statement, and the absence of immediate medical examination for rape, raises questions about the prosecution's case's veracity and completeness.The Court determined that the arrest and continued detention of the accused would lead to undue humiliation and potentially unwarranted persecution without reasonable grounds indicating their involvement in the alleged crime, justifying the granting of both pre-arrest and post-arrest bail under further inquiry.----Citations/Precedents:Section 365-B of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 - Pertains to the kidnapping, abducting, or inducing a woman to compel her marriage, etc.Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 - Pertains to the recording of confessions and statements.Salman Akram Raja and another vs. Government of Punjab through Chief Secretary and others (PLJ 2013 SC 107) - Directed mandatory administration of DNA tests and preservation of DNA evidence in rape cases.Section 497, Cr.P.C. - Discusses the conditions under which bail may be granted or denied, emphasizing the need for reasonable grounds of suspicion against the accused for involvement in the offence.---Quote:(1) In rape cases, administration of DNA test (Deoxyribonucleic acid) and preservation of DNA evidence is mandatory. (2) Further inquiry refers to a notional assessment creating doubts regarding the involvement of accused (3) Reasonable grounds are the grounds attracted to the judicial mind which are not imaginative or presumptuous.

Summary: Background:This case involves a Human Rights application (No. 8157-P of 2023) filed under Article 184(3) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, which was heard by the Supreme Court of Pakistan. The applicant, Mr. Moeez Ahmed Khan, alleged serious abuses of power by certain members of the Armed Forces and the Inter Services Intelligence (ISI), including illegal raids, detentions, and forced property transfers, affecting both his personal and business assets.??Issues:Whether the Supreme Court can directly intervene under Article 184(3) of the Constitution in a case presenting issues such as alleged human rights violations by high-ranking military officers.Whether the applicant has any other adequate legal remedies available to address his grievances.??Holding/Reasoning/Outcom:eThe Supreme Court noted the serious nature of the allegations, which potentially undermined the reputation of the Federal Government, the Armed Forces, and other entities. However, the Court identified that:Article 184(3) of the Constitution is intended for matters of public importance and the enforcement of fundamental rights, and must be exercised with caution, especially when alternative remedies are available.The applicant was advised to first seek redress through other available forums, including filing a complaint with the Ministry of Defence, criminal prosecution, or civil action for damages.The learned Additional Attorney-General assured the Court that the Ministry of Defence would duly consider the complaint if submitted, alleviating concerns regarding potential bias due to the high rank of the accused officers.The application was disposed of, with the Court instructing the applicant to pursue his grievances through the mentioned channels, ensuring that his rights would be respected and his concerns addressed according to law.??Citations/Precedents:Article 184(3) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan - Allows the Supreme Court to exercise its original jurisdiction in matters of public importance with reference to the enforcement of fundamental rights.Article 185 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan - Pertains to appellate jurisdiction over decisions from High Courts.

Summary: PLJ 2023 Karachi 45 Present AdSummary Pending --- - ul - Karim Memon J Mst FARAH NAZ and another - - Appellants versus PROVINCE OF SINDH through Board of Revenue and 10 others - - Respondents 11nd Appeal No S - 29 of 2018 decided on 28112022 Civil Procedure Code 1908 (V of 1908) - - - - - - OVII R 11 - - Specific Relief Act (I of 1877) Ss 9 42 - - Suit for declaration and permanent injunction - - Application for rejection of suit - - Accepted - - Suit was rejected - - Appeal - - Dismissed - - Non - recording of evidence of appellants - - Technical knock out of appellant - - More than one prayer in plaint - - Two contradictory stances could only be threshed out if Mukhtiarkar concerned and District Officer Revenue are examined by trial Court including any other official well conversant with subject land - - It is a trite law that cause of action is a bundle of facts and whether plaint discloses a cause of action is a question of fact that has to be gathered based on averments made in plaint in its entirety by taking those averments to be correct - - Plaint discloses some cause of action that requires a determination by Court mere opinion that possession was not with appellants and they failed to approach in time or appellant may not succeed cannot be a ground for rejection of plaint - - There are more than one prayer as mentioned in plaint it is settled now that partial rejection is not permissible under law - - If with regard to any one prayer jurisdiction of civil Court is barred and with regard to other prayers it is not plaint cannot be rejected - - In instant matter when there are other prayers also rejection of plaint was not justified by civil Court all two for a below fell in error while rejecting plaint - - Record does not show that revenue entry as claimed by appellants has been canceled or extinguished based on Khasra Gardawri - - Disputed mutation in favor of a third party in intervening period if any is to be thrashed out in evidence by examining Mukhtiarkar concerned and title holder of document - - Appeal allowed [Pp 52 53 54] A C G H Civil Procedure Code 1908 (V of 1908) - - - - - - OVII R 11 - - Non - disclosing of cause of action - - When no cause of action is disclosed in plaint Court will not unnecessarily protract and party should not be unnecessarily harassed in suit - - To invoke power Court has to read plaint whether it discloses cause of action and if it does then plaint cannot be rejected by Court by exercising power under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC [P 52] B Civil Procedure Code 1908 (V of 1908) - - - - - - OVII R 11 - - Rejection of plaint - - A plaint should not be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 of Civil Procedure Code at initial stage without proper inquiry - - At same time a Court of Law has enough powers to see that vexatious litigation are not allowed to consume time of Court [P 52] D Civil Procedure Code 1908 (V of 1908) - - - - - - OVII R 11 - - Cause of action - - Allegations made in plaint cannot be gone into at threshold as it is a matter to be tried in civil suit - - Even if cause of action pleaded is a false or deliberate falsehood same cannot be gone into an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC [P 53] E Land Revenue Act 1967 (XVII of 1967) - - - - - - S 42 - - Sanctioning of mutation - - A mutation is always sanctioned through summary proceedings and to beep record updated and for collection of revenue such entries are made in relevant Register under Section 42 of Land Revenue Act 1967 [P 53] F Appellant No 1 is present in person Mr Allah Bachayo Soomro Additional Advocate General Sindh Ms Ziauddin Abdul Aziz Shaikh Advocate for Respondents 6 to 8Judgement Result:Appeal allowed

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: The inheritance of a Muslim is to be devolved upon his/ her legal heirs as per Shariah irrespective of the custom prevailing at that time- No limitation runs in inheritance matters- The moment a Muslim closes his / her eyes, legal heirs become owners of their respective share which cannot be taken away mere on the basis of an entry in the revenue record- Entry and sanctioning of inheritance mutation is mere a matter of updating the official record.

Summary: The Registrar Cooperatives in exercise of his powers to issue directions to a Cooperative Society under Section 44-D of the Cooperatives Societies Act, 1925 cannot give arbitrarily directions inconsistent with the scheme of law and the by-laws of the society. The direction of imposing a supra-quorum with respect to Special General Meeting inconsistent with stipulated quorum in the by-laws was struck down.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b), 324, 427, 148 & 149---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, mischief causing damage to the amount of fifty rupees, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly---Appreciation of evidence---Place of reporting the incident to the police doubtful---Accused were charged for committing murder of three brothers of the complainant by firing---It was admitted by the complainant that while going to the hospital,three Police Stations fell in the way, but the complainant did not report the matter in the Police Station, rather the dead bodies were shifted to the hospital---Distance between a Police Station and the spot was shown as 2½ kilometers, but surprisingly, the report was not made in the very Police Station despite the fact that the Medical Officer disclosed the death as immediate---Matter was reported to one SI who took it in the shape of murasila,whereas the injury sheets and inquest reports were prepared by another SI, in the hospital, but none of those witnesses were posted in the casualty ward of the hospital, rather their attendance was procured when the information was conveyed to the Police Station---Record further told that both the said SIs/witnesses were posted at different stations, then question was as how the two reached the hospital at one and the same time--- Complainant in his court statement disclosed that after reporting the matter in the hospital, he went to the Police Station and on his information the FIR was registered---When the statements of the scribe, the complainant and witnesswere placed in juxtaposition, no ambiguity was left that the matter was reported in the Police Station and thereafter the dead bodies were shifted to the hospital---As the Medical Officer confirmed that soon after receiving firearm injuries the deceased died on the spot, so there was every possibility that the dead bodies were taken to the Police Station and the matter was reported---When the statements of all the three witnesses were read in juxtaposition, no ambiguity was left that the dead bodies were brought to the Police Station and the matter was reported---Circumstances established that the prosecution failed to prove its case against the accused---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b), 324, 427, 148 & 149---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, mischief causing damage to the amount of fifty rupees, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly---Appreciation of evidence---Presence of the eye-witnesses at the spot not proved---Accused were charged for committing murder of three brothers of the complainant by firing---Complainant told that besides him other male members of the family were also present at the time of occurrence, then question was as to why rest of the male members did not accompany the dead bodies to the hospital and why the complainant went alone---An eye-witness supported the report of the complainant, but he disclosed that soon after the incident a vehicle was arranged, the deceased then injured boarded the said vehicle and the complainant accompanied them to the hospital---Such explanation of the eye-witness did not appeal to a prudent mind, since had he been present, he under all circumstances would have accompanied the deceased then injured, to the hospital---At the time of firing the complainant and the witnesses were standing just behind the deceased, but they did not receive a single firearm injury and even the bullet exiting from the bodies did not cause any harm to them---Circumstances in which the complainant explained the situation were not convincing---Circumstances established that the prosecution failed to prove its case against the accused---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. (c) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b), 324, 427, 148 & 149---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, mischief causing damage to the amount of fifty rupees, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly---Appreciation of evidence---Contradictions in the statements of witnesses---Accused were charged for committing murder of three brothers of the complainant by firing---Eye-witness and the complainant contradicted each other regarding the shifting of the deceased, then injured, from spot to the hospital---When the deceased received serious injuries on different parts of their bodies, then question was as to how they boarded the vehicle themselves, and how could they move from the place where they received firearm injuries, to the vehicle---Circumstances established that the prosecution failed to prove its case against the accused---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. (d) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b), 324, 427, 148 & 149---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, mischief causing damage to the amount of fifty rupees, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly---Appreciation of evidence---Mode and manner of the incident doubtful---Accused were charged for committing murder of three brothers of the complainant by firing---Complainant disclosed that after receiving firearm injuries in the main gate of the house, the deceased (then injured) were put in a vehicle; and blood oozed from their bodies at the stated places---If the deceased received firearm injuries in the main gate of the house, then under all circumstances, the blood must have been recovered therefrom, but absence of blood from the main gate of the house was a circumstance which belied the stance of the complainant and confirmed that the deceased received injuries at different points, and after receiving firearm injuries they fell to the ground, which is why the Investigating Officer collected blood from their respective places---At the time of spot inspection, apart from the regular police, some officials from the political administration were also available, as the premises from which the blood and empties were collected was located in the erstwhile Federally Administered Tribal Areas---When admittedly, the accused, the empties and the blood were found in a tribal territory, then in that eventuality, neither the registration of the FIR was competent, nor the Trial Court was competent to have decided the fate of the appellants--- Complainant and the eye-witness twisted the facts and made a conscious attempt to shift the incident from different points to the front of the main gate of the house, so that the local police and the established Courts would be competent to assume jurisdiction---Deviation of the complainant from the natural course and shifting of places of the deceased were from different points to the main gate of the house though brought the matter within the competence of the local police, but at the same time it damaged the prosecution case beyond repair, as the absence of blood from the main gate of the house was a circumstance which could not be lightly ignored---Incident did not occur in the mode and manner claimed and at the stated time---Circumstances established that the prosecution failed to prove its case against the accused---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Ali Sher and others v. The State 2008 SCMR 707 rel. (e) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b), 324, 427, 148 & 149---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, mischief causing damage to the amount of fifty rupees, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly---Appreciation of evidence--- Ocular account and medical evidence--- Confliction---Accused were charged for committing murder of three brothers of the complainant by firing---Record showed that the medical evidence was in conflict with the ocular account---Had the deceased received firearm injuries in the main gate of the house, the deceased would have received the maximum number of injuries on their chest with its' exit on their back, but the medical evidence and the post mortem report told another story---When the firing was made soon after the gate was opened, then question was how the deceased received maximum number of injuries on their back and why the deceased did not receive injuries on the left, as left side of the bodies of the deceased exposed to the set of accused who were present to the west of the house---Time between injury and death was another circumstance which did not support the eye-witness account, as according to the complainant the deceased breathed their last when they reached near the hospital, whereas the doctor confirmed the death as immediate---Medical evidence was confirmatory in nature and in presence of trustworthy and confidence inspiring eye-witness account, the same played little role, but once the witnesses failed to convince their presence on the spot and once the credibility of the witnesses was shattered, then in such eventuality the conflict between the two would be a factor to be taken into consideration in favor of the accused and the present case was no exception--- Circumstances established that the prosecution failed to prove its case against the accused---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Najaf Ali Shah v. The State 2021 SCMR 736 rel. (f) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b), 324, 427, 148 & 149---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, mischief causing damage to the amount of fifty rupees, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly--- Appreciation of evidence---Motive not proved---Accused were charged for committing murder of three brothers of the complainant by firing---Motive was stated to be the previous blood feud between the parties and in that respect copy of a FIR of the same Police Station was placed on file, where two of the deceased were charged for an incident, and one of the accused also received injuries in the episode, and it was he who reported the matter---As the Investigating Officer could not collect independent evidence in respect of the motive and as the number of accused did not commensurate with the number of injuries caused, so in such eventuality, the alleged motive could be the cause of killing, but at the same time it could be the cause for false implication as well---Circumstances established that the prosecution failed to prove its case against the accused---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Muhammad Ishaque v. The State 2007 SCMR 108 rel. (g) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b), 324, 427, 148 & 149---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, mischief causing damage to the amount of fifty rupees, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly---Appreciation of evidence---Absconsion of the accused---Inconsequential---Accused were charged for committing murder of three brothers of the complainant by firing---Incident occurred in the year 2016, but the appellants were arrested in the year 2017 and 2018 respectively---Accused could not give any plausible explanation for their abscondance, but that alone would not be sufficient to hold them responsible for the murders of the deceased---Eye-witness failed to convince their presence on the spot and the witnesses did not successfully face searching cross-examination, not only in respect of the manner in which the incident occurred, but also in respect of the manner in which the dead bodies were shifted and the matter was reported---When the witnesses lost their credibility, then the unexplained abscondance would hardly be a ground for holding the appellants guilty---Circumstances established that the prosecution failed to prove its case against the accused---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Muhammad Tasaweer v. Hafiz Zulkarnain and 2 others PLD 2009 SC 53 rel.. Abdul Fayaz, Khizar Hayat Khazana and Bashir Ahmad Khan for Appellalnts. Jalal-ud-Din Akbar Azam Gara, A.A.G. for the State. Mian Jamal Shah for the Complainant. Date of hearing: 7th November, 2023.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending