Summary: Acquittal granted----Mst. Shaukat Bibi, along with Mst. Samina Bibi, was tried for offenses under sections 302/34/201 PPC in connection with the death of Muhammad Amjad. The trial court convicted Mst. Shaukat Bibi under section 302(b) PPC and sentenced her to life imprisonment. Mst. Samina Bibi was acquitted of charges under sections 302(b), 34, and 201 of PPC. The judgment raised concerns about the reliability of the prosecution's case, highlighting unnatural conduct of witnesses and contradictions in their statements. The court questions the credibility of the witnesses, emphasizing that the complainant's family members did not intervene during the alleged assault. Moreover, the court noted the absence of key witnesses who were residents of the same house where the incident occurred. The prosecution's failure to produce these witnesses and medical records from hospitals is seen as withholding crucial evidence. The court concluded that the prosecution failed to prove the alleged motive and highlights the lack of evidence supporting the complainant's version. It criticized the prosecution for not addressing the contradictions in the witnesses' statements and relying on weak evidence. The court accepted the appeal of Mst. Shaukat Bibi, setting aside her conviction and sentence, and acquitted her of the charge under section 302(b) PPC due to the benefit of doubt. The court dismissed the other appeals related to the acquittal of Mst. Samina Bibi and the enhancement of the sentence against Mst. Shaukat Bibi.

Summary: Bail granted---The petitioner had applied for pre-arrest bail, but due to various reasons, including the transfer of the presiding officer and the petitioner's alleged illegal arrest, the application was dismissed for non-prosecution. The petitioner argued that his absence which was not intentional, citing an alleged illegal police raid on his house. The petitioner contended that the order was not only illegal but also harsh and unjustified. The discussion delves into the relevant sections of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) regarding bail and presents case law to establish the legal framework. It highlighted the significance of Sections 498 and 498-A Cr.P.C. and the conditions for granting pre-arrest bail. The Full Bench rulings emphasized that bail before arrest is an extraordinary relief granted in specific circumstances, with stringent conditions. In the current case, the petitioner's argument that his absence was not willful due to an alleged illegal arrest is considered valid. The impugned order was criticized for not waiting for the State's reply to the petitioner's explanation for non-appearance and for dismissing the bail petition for non-prosecution. Consequently, the court accepted the petition, sets aside the impugned order.

Summary: Bail denied---Background:In Criminal Petition No. 610 of 2020, Muhammad Noman Munir appealed against the judgment dated 21st May 2020 issued by the Lahore High Court Lahore in Crl. Misc. No. 20425-B/2020. The petitioner was apprehended by the Police Station Kotwali Sialkot on 23rd January 2020, where he was found in possession of 1380 grams of cannabis and 07 grams of heroin. His request for bail was declined by the lower courts.---Issues:Whether the quantity of narcotics found in the possession of the petitioner falls within the prohibited limits as per the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997?Whether the refusal of bail by the lower courts was justified considering the absence of a witness from the public?---Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The court determined that the quantity of narcotics found with the petitioner exceeded the limits defined in the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, thereby falling under the provisions of section 51 of the Act, which prohibits such possession. Additionally, the court noted that despite the presence of people at the scene of apprehension, none came forward to assist the law enforcement officers, reflecting societal apathy towards civic responsibilities. The court also held that the acts of the law enforcement contingent were prima facie presumed to be within the scope of their duties. Consequently, the refusal of bail by the lower courts was deemed lawful, and the petition was dismissed. Leave was declined.---Citations/Precedents:Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997

Summary: Background:In Criminal Petition No. 622 of 2020, Imran Abbas appealed against the judgment dated 28th January 2020 issued by the Islamabad High Court Islamabad in Crl. Misc. No. 19-B/2020. Imran Abbas was accused of murdering Maria Mughal, his former wife, with a single gunshot to the skull witnessed by her younger sister, Talal Sahr, on 15th August 2019. The petitioner sought bail based on an affidavit allegedly exonerating him, which was deemed suspicious by the courts.---Issues:Whether the petitioner should be granted bail based on the affidavit allegedly sworn by the complainant.Whether witness protection measures should be enforced to ensure Ms. Talal Sahr's safe testimony.---Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The court found the sudden change in the complainant's testimony, from blaming Imran Abbas to attributing the murder to unknown dacoits, highly suspicious. Recognizing the importance of witness protection for a fair trial, the court directed the Inspector General of Police Islamabad Capital Territory to ensure Ms. Talal Sahr's safe conduct to testify without fear or duress. The trial was instructed to proceed promptly, with a diligent prosecution, and the possibility of a trial in jail premises if necessary. The petitioner withdrew the petition upon reconsideration, and it was dismissed as withdrawn.

Summary: Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Pre-emption Act (X of 1987)- -Ss. 6(a) & 6(c)-Right of pre-emption-Shafi-sharik-Shafi-jar-Suit property, sold through different sale deeds, comprised of a 'haveli' owned by predecessor of the vendors-After demise of their predecessor the property devolved upon his legal heirs (vendors)-All the legal heirs, due to their family settlement, retained their separate possessions of their respective shares-Appellant being a pre-emptor had also purchased specific share from the suit 'haveli'-Contention on behalf of appellant that since he had purchased the shares of some of the legal heirs from the joint property, he had become-co-owner in the 'haveli' and as such had superior right of pre-emption as shafi-sharik-Held, that sales made in favour of the appellant as well as the impugned sales (under pre-emption) would show sale of specific areas with their separate specific boundaries-Contention on behalf of appellant, in the given circumstances, had no force at all-Appellant could not be termed as a co-owner of the property as all the legal heirs were in possession of their respective shares due to family settlement which amounted to private partition and the 'haveli' as such was no more a joint property-Appellant, in the given situation, had become owner to the extent of his share he had purchased with the specific boundaries and could not be termed as co-owner in the entire property-Perusal of all sale deeds, including the impugned sales (under pre-emption) reflected that each impugned sale deed had different boundaries from the boundaries given in the sale deeds of the appellant-Such factum clearly showed that the property owned by the appellant was not adjacent/contiguous with any of the suit property, so, the appellant could not be termed as a pre-emptor having superior right of pre-emption as shafi-jar-Appellant having failed to establish his superior right of pre-emption was rightly non-suited by the fora below-Appeals were dismissed.

Summary: (b) Administration of justice- -Court, neutrality of-In criminal dispensation of justice, the Court being an independent adjudicator at all stages must religiously maintain its neutrality without having any responsibility to either side. (c) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)-

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: -----Writ Petition for issuance of direction to National Highway Authority (a) Contract Law – Dispute Resolution Mechanism – Maintainability of Writ Petition: ----Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199 – Arbitration Act, 1940 – Contractual Obligations – Dispute Resolution Clause The petitioner, an operator of a toll plaza under contract with the National Highway Authority (NHA), challenged a show cause notice demanding penalty payments and outstanding dues due to reduced toll collections caused by external factors, including disruptions by transporters and law enforcement interventions. The court observed that the contract explicitly contained a dispute resolution clause (Clause 9.4) that provided a detailed mechanism for arbitration under the Arbitration Act, 1940. It was held that where a contract contains a valid arbitration clause, parties must exhaust the contractual remedy before invoking the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court. ----Cited Cases: Mumtaz Ahmad v. Zila Council, Sahiwal (1999 SCMR 117) Abdul Qayyum Khan v. District Officer, Passenger and Freight (2003 MLD 670) Messrs Frontier Construction Company v. Bahauddin Zakariya University (2006 MLD 978) Signage Security System v. CDA (2010 CLC 567) ----Disposition: The petition was dismissed as not maintainable, with directions for the petitioner to pursue the arbitration and dispute resolution mechanism as specified in Clause 9.4 of the contract.

Summary: Criminal Appeal, against Conviction, against judgment of special court (life Imprisonment)

Summary: Against Recovery Proceedings Stay against Show Cause Notice u/s 147 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001