Summary: Bail granted ---- (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860) ----Ss. 462-I & 322—Illegal electricity connection through LT/HT poles causing electrocution death—Bail—Rule of consistency and further inquiry. Petitioner, an S.D.O. LESCO, accused of negligence and reckless conduct resulting in the electrocution of a child when storm-broken cable wires carrying high tension current caused fatal shock—Held, co-accused having similar role (Line Superintendent) was already granted pre-arrest bail by Supreme Court; other co-accused were either granted post-arrest bail or declared innocent—In absence of distinguishing features, petitioner entitled to same treatment under rule of parity—Offence involved questions of mens rea and degree of negligence which required determination after trial—Case, therefore, fell within ambit of “further inquiry”—Bail confirmed. (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) ----S. 497—Grant of bail—Principles—Further inquiry and rule of consistency. Gravity or heinousness of offence by itself not sufficient to refuse bail when evidence raises reasonable doubt as to petitioner’s culpability—Doctrine of further inquiry implies tentative assessment revealing doubt about involvement—Rule of parity demands equal treatment where co-accused with identical role already admitted to bail—Court must consider degree of involvement, not only nature of offence—Bail confirmed subject to cooperation in investigation and trial. (c) Bail—Conditions—Cancellation of bail. Petitioner directed to cooperate with investigation and attend trial; misuse or abuse of concession or non-cooperation would entitle Trial Court to cancel bail—Observations in order declared tentative and not to prejudice merits of case. Disposition—Criminal Petition converted into appeal and allowed—Pre-arrest bail earlier granted confirmed on same terms and conditions—Petitioner to cooperate in investigation and trial; failure to do so may entail cancellation of bail—Order not approved for reporting.

Summary: (a) Ehtesab Bureau Act, 2001—Section 21(6) first proviso—Statutory abatement of delayed inquiries—Mandatory nature—Where inquiry/investigation is not concluded within one year of complaint receipt, proceedings abate by operation of law and cannot be revived to found a reference; trial court’s assumption of jurisdiction thereafter is ultra vires the Act. (b) Accountability proceedings—Limitation and promptitude—Object—The one-year bar embodies legislative policy against stale and potentially mala fide prosecutions; courts must enforce it strictly to protect due process and finality. (c) Jurisdiction—Reference filed after statutory abatement—Effect—Any subsequent cognizance by the Ehtesab Court on a time-barred inquiry/reference is without lawful authority; conviction so recorded is vitiated. (d) Allotment dispute (MDA)—Proper forum and burden—Where the Mirpur Development Authority is the competent forum for allotment questions, bypassing that mechanism and invoking criminal accountability without first establishing a civil/administrative entitlement is impermissible—Complainant must produce conclusive documentary proof of allotment; mere similarity of name/parentage is insufficient. (e) Criminal trial—Standard of proof—Benefit of doubt—Where prosecution fails to establish beyond reasonable doubt the alleged substitution/forgery of the original application or illicit re-registration, acquittal must follow; prolonged unexplained delay in initiating inquiry further undermines the case. (f) Appellate interference with acquittal—Principles—An acquittal reinforces the presumption of innocence; interference lies only where findings are perverse, capricious, or against settled principles—Absent strong, cogent reasons, the acquittal is not to be disturbed. Followed: Mushtaq Ahmed v. Sikandar Khan (2015 SCR 1520); Mst. Mehmoona Kousar v. Muhammad Khalil (2023 SCR 921). (g) Result—Appeal dismissed—High Court judgment dated 14-06-2024 acquitting respondents upheld in toto; convictions recorded by Ehtesab Court on 28-02-2023 set aside for want of jurisdiction and evidentiary insufficiency. Disposition: Appeal dismissed; acquittal maintained.

Summary: Court, has set aside an order by the District Magistrate/Deputy Commissioner of Khar Bajaur to detain Abdul Azeem for one month under Section 3 of the West Pakistan Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance, 1959 (MPO). The District Magistrate ordered Abdul Azeem`s detention for allegedly disrupting the peaceful atmosphere by blocking a public pathway in village Toor Mian Kalay. Abdul Azeem argued the pathway isn`t for general public use, and a civil suit (No. 131/1 of 2023) regarding the pathway is pending in a civil court. The Court found insufficient grounds for detention under Section 3 of MPO. The court emphasized that detention requires objective satisfaction of the executive based on credible evidence. No justifiable or specific allegations were disclosed against Abdul Azeem for detention under MPO. The court cited constitutional guarantees of liberty and the need for sufficient material to curtail a person`s liberty.

Summary: The testimony of a witness related to the deceased cannot be brushed aside merely on the ground of relationship if his presence on the spot at the relevant time is otherwise established by the prosecution through strong, reliable and convincing evidence. Judicial confession of an accused if found to be in consonance with other evidence on the record especially the ocular account and the defence fails to establish that it was obtained through persuasion, promise, torture, coercion or undue influence, can be treated as a true and voluntary confession. The purpose of lodging an FIR is simply to set the law into motion, therefore, any fact not mentioned therein but subsequently proved by the prosecution during trial through confidence-inspiring evidence cannot be termed as a dishonest improvement

Summary: The competent forum was never approached for incorporation of the alleged gift deed into the revenue record. Neither the particulars nor a copy of the said gift deed has been placed on file, which prevents this Court from ascertaining the precise amendment being sought No order of any competent authority or Court existed in favour of Umrah Khan to validate the incorporation of the entry in the revenue record which is questioned by the petitioner The reduction of the share of petitioners' possession from 3 Kanals 7 Marlas to 1 Kanal 7 Marla has also been effected without sanction of any competent authority or decree of a Court of law.

Summary: Acquittal granted ---- (a) Qanun-e-Shahadat Order (X of 1984) — Art. 46 — Dying declaration — Evidentiary value — Conditions for admissibility — Requirement of corroboration — Reliability of declaration recorded by relatives — Non-audible video evidence — No medical certification or FSL analysis The conviction of the accused for setting his wife on fire was based primarily on a purported dying declaration recorded via mobile phone by her relatives. The Supreme Court held that a dying declaration, while admissible under Article 46 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, constitutes a weaker type of evidence and must be corroborated by reliable, independent, and confidence-inspiring material. In the present case, the Court found that the video recording was not properly audible, the statement appeared to be tutored, and it lacked certification from a medical professional regarding the deceased’s fitness to make a statement. Furthermore, the recording was not sent for forensic analysis. In such circumstances, the Court concluded that the declaration lacked evidentiary value and could not be relied upon for conviction. Cited Cases: • Muhammad Saeed v. The State 2024 SCMR 1421 • Ghulam Zohra v. Muhammad Sadiq 1997 SCMR 449 • Zahida Bibi v. The State PLD 2006 SC 255 • Tahir Khan v. The State 2011 SCMR 646 • Ishtiaq Ahmed Mirza v. Federation of Pakistan PLD 2019 SC 675 (b) Criminal Procedure — FIR — Delay in lodging — Effect — FIR registered four days after occurrence — No plausible justification for delay The Supreme Court observed that the FIR in the instant case was lodged more than four days after the incident, which involved the alleged act of setting the deceased on fire. Although the delay was explained by the complainant as being contingent upon the death of the victim, the Court found that such delay cast a shadow on the credibility of the prosecution’s case, particularly when coupled with weak and contradictory witness testimonies. (c) Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 302(b) — Murder — Husband accused of setting wife ablaze — Contradictions in prosecution case — Inconsistent witness statements — No independent corroboration — Accused took injured wife to hospital The Court noted major contradictions among the testimonies of prosecution witnesses, including the complainant and the deceased's sisters, regarding the circumstances of the incident and recording of the dying declaration. Some witnesses claimed the accused was present and took the deceased to the hospital, while others asserted he was not present at the scene. The Court emphasized that the conduct of the accused in taking his injured wife to the hospital undermined the prosecution’s version of premeditated murder. Moreover, there was no pending dispute or litigation between the couple, and the alleged motive of domestic quarrels was found to be insufficient and unsubstantiated. (d) Criminal Trial — Benefit of doubt — Standard of proof — Prosecution must prove case beyond reasonable doubt — Weaknesses in dying declaration and lack of independent evidence — Conviction unsustainable The Supreme Court reiterated that in criminal cases, the benefit of doubt must be extended to the accused if the prosecution fails to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. In the present case, the deficiencies in the dying declaration, contradictions in witness depositions, unexplained delay in FIR registration, and lack of motive created sufficient doubt. As per settled law, even the slightest doubt entitles the accused to acquittal. Disposition: Appeal allowed. Conviction and sentence set aside. Accused acquitted of charge under S. 302(b), P.P.C. and ordered to be released if not required in any other case.

Summary: Invoking the constitutional jurisdiction of this Court cannot be termed to be an "adequate remedy" to challenge grant or refusal of ad interim injunction being not final and conclusive in nature.

Summary: Invoking the constitutional jurisdiction of this Court cannot be termed to be an "adequate remedy" to challenge grant or refusal of ad interim injunction being not final and conclusive in nature. 321Crl. Appeal 43770/19 Zahid Hussain Vs The State etc. Justice Abher Gul Khan 07- 07- 2025 2025 LHC 5049 2025 YLR 2359 (Lahore)

Summary: (a) Contempt of Court — Purpose and scope — To uphold the majesty of courts, ensure unimpeded administration of justice, and preserve public confidence — Contempt is not to protect individual judges but to vindicate the authority of the Court and the sanctity of its orders — Robkar-e-Adalat v. Shahid Mohi-ud-Din (2017 SCR 1411), Haji Javed Akram v. Ch. Muhammad Saeed (2022 SCR 816), Kh. Muhammad Maqbool War v. AJ&K & others (2022 SCR 1299) followed and applied. (b) Constitutional & statutory framework — Article 45, AJ&K Interim Constitution, 1974 — Courts (SC/HC) empowered to punish for: abuse/obstruction of process; disobedience of orders; scandalizing the Court; prejudicing pending matters; or any act constituting contempt — Exercise of power regulated by law/rules — Contempt of Courts Act, 1993, s.7 (procedure) reproduced and applied — In-facie curial power under s.7(4) recognized. (c) Willful disobedience of Supreme Court’s direction — Criminal case under s. 9(c) CNSA, 1997 — SC order dated 19-01-2023 declined bail and directed trial to conclude within six months “without touching merits” — Sessions Judge nevertheless allowed an application under s. 265-K, Cr.P.C., and acquitted the accused within < one month (16-02-2023) — Held: action calculated to defeat and defy SC’s binding direction; constitutes willful disobedience and criminal contempt. (d) False statement by judicial officer — When confronted in Court, contemnor denied passing the 265-K order; record from High Court proved otherwise — Held: deliberate misstatement before apex Court by a serving judge is aggravating; strikes at judicial integrity and public confidence — Contempt in gravest category. (e) Administrative circulars/policies v. binding judicial command — Defence based on “policy guidelines/circular dated 29-10-2021” rejected — Executive/administrative policy cannot override an apex-Court judgment; Art. 42-B (binding effect of SC judgments) emphasized — Even High Court judges are not immune from contempt if they act in derogation of superior judicial orders — Contemnor, a Sessions Judge, had an unequivocal duty to obey. (f) Pattern of misconduct — Relevance — Registrar HC report revealed repeated acquittals on s.265-K or appeals; bail granted in an overwhelming majority, with apparent preferential pattern; prior disciplinary history: (i) 52 compromise decrees (46 shamilat-deh; 6 private land) passed without authority as Sr. Civil Judge, Bhimber — two annual increments withheld (notification 08-07-2010); (ii) Viral audio using inappropriate language re judiciary while DSJ Rawalakot — three increments stopped (notification 28-03-2022); (iii) Complaint of abuse of litigant in open court at DSJ Haveli — unresolved — Held: persistent, unrepentant misconduct aggravates contempt and questions fitness to remain in service. (g) Apology — Bare, unelaborated “unconditional apology” tendered after charge is not ipso facto purgatory — Apology must be genuine, spontaneous, and show contrition — Conduct showed denial/deflection, not remorse — Apology rejected. (h) Supervisory responsibility — High Court’s superintendence over district judiciary — Court noted concern at failure to curb persistent misconduct; stressed constitutional duty of effective oversight. (i) Administrative/disciplinary consequences — Civil Servants (Efficiency & Discipline) Rules, 1977, r.9 invoked — Direction to competent authority to issue show-cause and pass an appropriate order within a fortnight; where conviction entails moral turpitude, major penalties may be imposed without full r.5–8 procedure, after show-cause. (j) Reference for revisional scrutiny — In view of Registrar report on 52 compromise decrees passed without legal authority and in violation of the Registration Act, matter referred to High Court under s.115(d), CPC for examination of legality/propriety after notice to decree-holders — High Court to decide within six months — AKLASC v. Messrs. Muhammad Farid Khan & others (PLD 1986 AJ&K 228) referred. Disposition: Contempt established — Conviction upheld — Sentence: 3 days’ simple imprisonment (per short order dated 02-07-2025) — Directions issued under r.9, E&D Rules, and reference made to High Court under s.115(d), CPC — Judgment dated 03-07-2025.

Summary: (a) Environmental law—National parks—Forest land—Public trust doctrine—Notification declaring “National Musk Deer Park, Guraiz” (24-09-2007)—Legal effect—Once forest land is notified as a national park, it cannot be subjected to allotment, private occupation, or regularization on so-called humanitarian or administrative “oral permissions”—Protection of ecological assets is a constitutional imperative; State holds such resources in trust for present and future generations—High Court’s direction to protect notification and evict illegal occupants affirmed. (b) Encroachment—Burden and proof—Commission report (05-10-2018) and Deputy Commissioner’s comprehensive report (post-leave order 06-05-2025) established unauthorized possession and constructions within park limits—No documentary sanction or regularization shown—Plea of displacement (1982–1991) and “oral resettlement” by functionaries rejected—Availability of proprietary land in Village Phulawi noted; claim of landlessness disproved—Presumption of correctness attaches to official record and surveys when unrebutted by credible evidence. (c) Judicial review—Environmental governance—Courts’ role—Where agencies fail to prevent encroachment/deforestation, constitutional courts may issue protective, restorative, and supervisory directions to secure public trust resources—High Court’s writ in public interest upheld as resting on sound factual appraisal and settled environmental principles. (d) Directions—Eviction and restoration—Forest Department and District Administration directed to remove all encroachments/constructions from National Musk Deer Park, Guraiz, and hand over recovered land to Wildlife & Fisheries Department—Operation to be completed within six months—Administrative cooperation mandated. (e) Systemic failures—Record-tampering and collusion—Court notes pervasive pattern across AJK of: (i) forest land being misrepresented as proprietary/Shamilat through manipulated revenue entries; (ii) procurement of decrees to mask usurpation; (iii) institutional inaction—Condemns collusion of elements within Forest/Revenue departments and public representatives—Calls for immediate structural reforms and accountability. (f) Policy/reform roadmap—Court urges Government to: constitute high-powered Forest Land Reclamation Task Force; conduct GIS/satellite mapping and create tamper-proof digital boundaries; audit two decades of revenue mutations and void fraudulent conversions ab initio; strengthen forest and land revenue statutes with deterrent penalties; retrieve and reforest encroached tracts under scientific plans; activate Environmental Courts/Green Benches; prosecute/discipline complicit officials; ensure transparency via public portals; institutionalize community stewardship; and consider a moratorium on civil suits involving forest land absent a certified forest-status report—Periodic oversight by Chief Secretary recommended. (g) Climate, biodiversity, and ecosystem services—Rationale and comparative guidance—Forests’ role in carbon sequestration, water/soil conservation, biodiversity, and disaster mitigation emphasized—Reliance placed, by way of guidance, on *Ilyas Jandalvi & others v. PDA & others* (2022 SCR 812) discussing deforestation risks; Lahore High Court’s environmental survey in *PLD 2019 Lahore 664*; and Pakistan Supreme Court’s suo motu on “New Murree Project” (2010 SCMR 361). Disposition: Appeal dismissed—High Court judgment dated 21-10-2024 maintained—Eviction/restoration directions affirmed with six-month completion timeline—Copy to Chief Secretary AJK for implementation and strict compliance.