Summary: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)- Jaffar, Additional P.G. Punjab along with Nawaz, S.I. for the State.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Petition against allotment of plot in H -9 for construction of Mandir (Temple) (a) Constitutional Law – Rights of Minorities – Allocation of Land for Religious Purposes: ----Constitution of Pakistan, Arts. 20, 25 – Capital Development Authority (CDA) Ordinance, 1960 – Allocation of Plot for Temple, Community Center, and Cremation Site in Islamabad The petitioners challenged the allotment of Plot No.2, Sector H-9/2, Islamabad, for the construction of a Hindu temple, community center, and cremation site. They argued that the plot allocation violated the Master Plan of Islamabad, lacked necessity given the small Hindu population in the area, and constituted a waste of public funds. The court held that the Master Plan provides a broad outline, while specific plot designations are determined by CDA through sector layout plans. Sector H-9/2 includes designated plots for minority graveyards, justifying the allocation. Additionally, the CDA halted construction due to the allottee’s failure to submit a building plan for approval, which must precede any construction activity under CDA rules. Disposition: The petition was disposed of with directions that CDA must ensure compliance with its rules and regulations before approving any construction. The petitioners were granted liberty to approach the court again if grievances persist in the future. (b) Constitutional Law – State Funding for Religious Structures – Role of the Council of Islamic Ideology (CII): ----Constitution of Pakistan, Arts. 2-A, 20 – Federal Funding for Construction of Temple in Islamabad Petitioners argued that Federal Government funding of PKR 100 million for constructing a temple violated constitutional principles and amounted to misallocation of public funds, especially during the COVID-19 pandemic. The court noted that the Federal Government had not disbursed any funds and had referred the matter to the Council of Islamic Ideology (CII) for its opinion. Therefore, the grievance concerning funding was deemed premature and without basis at this stage. -----Disposition: The petitioners' concerns regarding funding were declared infructuous as no funds had been released, and the matter remained pending before the CII.

Summary: Service Matter, Seeking direction for annual increase in pay and pension benefits.

Summary: The case involved a husband (Petitioner) seeking a medical examination of his wife (Respondent No. 2) to determine her gender identity and, consequently, the validity of their marriage. The court discussed the right to privacy, the non-absoluteness of privacy rights, and the necessity for balancing conflicting interests. It emphasizes that the court should not become a tool for unscrupulous purposes and should order medical examinations only in exceptional circumstances when no alternative is available. The court also recognized Act XIII of 2018, a Pakistani law recognizing transgender rights. It referred to principles like informed consent and the relevance of medical examinations in family court matters. The court concluded that while Family Courts can direct parties to undergo medical examinations, such power is subject to specific conditions. Regarding the petitioner's request, the court finds the application premature and sets aside the lower court's order, suggesting the petitioner's evidence and circumstances should justify such an examination. The court instructed the Family Court to frame an additional issue about the validity of the marriage based on the wife's gender characteristics and decides on the medical examination after further evidence is presented. It also introduced a security deposit mechanism to protect the wife from potential harassment and states that she cannot be forced into the examination. The court emphasized the need for careful consideration of privacy rights, legal principles, and the specific circumstances surrounding the request for a medical examination in family court cases.

Summary: Bail granted---Background:The petitioners sought leave to appeal against the Lahore High Court's (Multan Bench) order dated 30.10.2019, which recalled the ad-interim bail granted to them on 14.10.2019. The case involved offenses including trespassing, firing, and assault, allegedly committed by 18 identified and 12 unidentified accused.---Issues:Whether the delay in lodging the FIR and the credibility of the prosecution's narrative justify the grant of pre-arrest bail.Whether challenges to the medico-legal report on firearm injuries affect the validity of the prosecution's case.Whether the recovery of empties and the common intention of the accused justify denial of bail.---Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The court emphasized that pre-arrest bail is an extraordinary remedy granted sparingly in cases of trumped-up charges or malafide prosecution.Referring to legal precedents, the court discussed the evolution of the concept of pre-arrest bail, emphasizing its importance in protecting individual liberty.Considering the arguments and case law, the court concluded that the petitioners had made a case for the grant of pre-arrest bail and converted the petition into an appeal, allowing it accordingly.---Citations/Precedents:Shabbir Ahmad v. The State (PLD 1981 Lahore 599)Meeran Bux vs. The State and another (PLD 1989 Supreme Court 347)Syed Muhammad Firdaus and others v. The State (2005 SCMR 784)

Summary: Bail denied---Background:In Criminal Petition No. 543 of 2020, Habib Ullah Jan and Asif Ullah Khan appealed against the order dated 5th March 2020 issued by the Peshawar High Court Bannu Bench Bannu in Crl. Misc. No. 73-B/2020. The petitioners were among the accused in a case of murderous assault lodged by Saad Ullah PW, alleging that they assaulted Kaleem Ullah, Saad Ullah, and Riffat Ullah, resulting in multiple injuries due to an ongoing dispute over a piece of land.---Issues:Whether the petitioners are entitled to bail despite the gravity of the offense and the evidence against them.Whether the High Court's decision to deny bail was justified.---Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The court noted the severity of the injuries sustained by the victims, supported by medical evidence and witness statements, as well as the recovery of weapons from the scene. Considering these factors, the High Court concluded that there were reasonable grounds to deny bail, as there was no need for further investigation to circumvent the statutory bar under section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. The court found the High Court's decision to be within its discretion and justified based on its own analysis. Therefore, the petition was dismissed, and leave was declined.

Summary: Bail denied---Background:Muhammad Ejaz, along with a co-accused, allegedly assaulted Sohail Ikram PW within the premises of District Courts Rawalpindi, causing multiple injuries, including a nasal fracture. The petitioner's previous plea for bail was dismissed, but he sought bail again based on the opinion of a medical board suggesting possible fabrication of the complainant's injuries.---Issues:Whether the findings of the medical board provide a new ground for the petitioner's release on bail.Whether the decision of the learned Magistrate to order re-examination of the injured was justified.Whether the opinion of the medical board regarding possible fabrication of injuries is sufficient to grant bail.---Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The Supreme Court found that the initial medical examination ruled out the possibility of foul play, and the learned Magistrate erred in ordering re-examination without affording the injured an opportunity to be heard. The opinion of the medical board, suggesting possible fabrication, was deemed inconsequential as it contradicted earlier findings and lacked objective evidence. The petition for bail was denied, and observations made in the order were deemed issue-specific and would not affect the outcome of the trial based on prosecution evidence alone.---Citations/Precedents:Qanun-e-Shahdat Order, 1984 (Article 129(e))Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 (Article 150)

Summary: PLJ 2020 CrC (Karachi) 36 Present Salahuddin Panhwar J MOHAMMAD MESUM ABBAS - - Applicant versus 1ST ADDITIONAL SESSIONS Judge and 3 others - - Respondents Crl Rev Appln No 157 of 2016 and MA No 11318 of 2017 decided on 1052018 Criminal Procedure Code 1898 (V of 1898) - - - - - - S 227 - - Pakistan Penal Code 1860 (XLV of 1860) Ss 324 506 - B 34 337 - F (i) 337 - F (v) - - Challan case pending application for alteration of charge filed - - Dismissal of - - Initially charge framed uSs 324 506 - B along with Section 34 PPC but subsequently amended charge by excluding Section 324 PPC - - Sessions Judge did find Offence 324 PPC (exclusively triable by a Court of Sessions) made out - - There can be no denial to legally established principle of law that trial commences on framing of charge hence no Court can frame a charge for offences which it legally cannot try and even in case of co - extensive concurrent jurisdiction trial must always be conducted by a Court of lower - grade so as to keep right of accused regarding appellate forum protected [Pp 38 39] A Criminal Procedure Code 1898 (V of 1898) - - - - - - S 227 - - Alteration or addition of charge - - At any stage of trial before pronouncement of judgment - - Held Trial Court is always competent to alter or add to any charge at any stage of trial before pronouncement of judgment - - However this legally established principle of law would not cause any prejudice to other principle regarding competence of Court in trying case as well following rule of propriety [P 39] B C Pakistan Penal Code 1860 (XLV of 1860) - - - - - - Ss 506 (b) 324 - - Rule of propriety in deciding case when offence uS 324 is also added with Section 506 (b) 34 - - Threat of dire consequences - - Attempt to commit qatl - i - amd - - Medical report - - Merely for reason of medical report (certificate) Learned Trial Court Judge (ASJ) was not competent to have excluded Section 324 particularly when he (ASJ) himself observed that nature of allegation is same so framing of charge under Section 506 - b 34 would not chance scenario - - If nature of allegation was same then how Section 324 could be excluded particularly when on same allegation Section 324 was included while flaming first charge [P 40] D Criminal Procedure Code 1898 (V of 1898) - - - - - - S 227 - - Alteration or addition of charge - - At any stage time - - Attack with iron rod - - Intention to commit qatl - i - amd - - Learned Trial Court Judge completely ignored of legal position that while framing charge Court is not competent to deal with matter in such a manner as normally can be done while evaluating evidence (writing judgment) - - Framing of charge legally can never be taken as synonym to that of judgment - - Informer Court only determines whether to proceed further or otherwise while in later it determines guilt are innocence [P 41] E Criminal Procedure Code 1898 (V of 1898) - - - - - - S 227 - - Alteration or addition of charge - - At any stage time - Principle of law as well as rule of propriety - - Failure to apply judicial mind and consequences of case - - Every judge is supposed to have all laws including settled principles of law on his sleeves - - Accordingly impugned order set aside first charge framed kept intact [P 41] F PLD 2016 SC 55 2011 SCMR 1145 Ref Syed Nasir Hussain Jafri Advocate for Applicants Mr Abdul Mateen Khan Advocate for Respondent Mr Abrar Ali Khichi APGJudgement Result:Order accordingly