Summary: If proceeding conducted or arrest made by any police officer, under a repealed law, which is otherwise saved by the amended law, could not be termed illegal.

Summary: 1. Nothing was brought on record that in fact complainant had accompanied her deceased son for irrigating the fileds and no witness was examined in this respect. 2. The matter was reported at 07.00 a.m. with a delay of 12 hours, which the complainant failed to explain.3. The motive has been stated to be blood feud between the parties but despite in close range only the deceased was targeted and the complainant was left alive being at their mercy. 4. Bail applications cannot be heard in vacuum.

Summary: 1. The prosecution is yet to explain that why the statement of Imam Basher was not recorded on the day when he was allegedly shown present at the time of police encounter and such delayed statement loses its worth and it favours the persons charged.2. It is settled law that vacarious liability of accused is to be determined by the trial Court after recording evidence.

Summary: Obviously, in the event of indiscriminate firing by six persons simultaneously, it is absolutely impossible for a victim to note with exactitude that whose fire hits him on a particular part of his body. Surprisingly, it is the complainant who has performed such miracle by differentiating roles of accused/respondents in the commission of offence and that too when he received injuries on his hips. As per medical evidence, the injured complainant was fired at from back side in view of the locale of injuries. In such circumstances, surely no one can take notice of firing being made from behind him.The story narrated by the complainant in his report suggests that the occurrence has not taken place in the mode and manner as alleged by him. There is something which was suppressed by the complainant in order to rope in falsely various persons of the same family by ascribing them different roles in the commission of the offence. Thus, the statement of the injured complainant in the circumstances of the case does not ring truth. Mere stamp of injuries on the person of a witness would not be a proof of the fact that whatever he deposes would be the truthful account of the events. His veracity is to be tested from the circumstances of the case and his own statement whether it fits in the circumstances of the case or otherwise. Appeal against acquittal dismissed in limine.

Summary: Interpretation of grant of remission to the convicts by the President under the Constitution of Pakistan, ATA, 1997, and the Prisons rules.

Summary: Criminal Appeal (Appeal dismissed)---The incident occurred when the accused entered a house in Karachi and committed robbery. The prosecution provided evidence of their involvement, including the recovery of firearms, ammunition, and stolen items from the appellants' possession. The appellants appealed their convictions, claiming innocence and alleging that they were falsely implicated due to police misconduct. The defense argued that the appellants were already in custody before the incident and were mistreated by the police. The High Court upheld the trial court's verdict, concluding that the prosecution had proven the appellants' guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The court emphasized the severity of the crimes committed, including robbery and possession of firearms, and the need for stringent sentences to deter such offenses. Consequently, the court upheld the sentences imposed on the appellants, dismissing their appeals.

Summary: Background:Allah Rakha, the petitioner, was serving as Civil Nazir with the Senior Civil Judge Sialkot when discrepancies were discovered during a routine audit. He was found to have misappropriated various amounts totaling Rs. 36,00,000. Upon being confronted with his misconduct, he returned Rs. 7,00,000 but failed to clear the remaining liability. Consequently, he faced trial before the Special Judge Anti-Corruption (Provincial) Gujranwala and was convicted. ---Issues:The main issue is the appropriateness of the sentence imposed on Allah Rakha under section 409 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, and whether it should be reduced.---Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:After careful consideration, the court dismissed the petition but reduced the sentence imposed under section 409 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, from ten years to five years, which is equivalent to the sentence imposed on coordinate charges. The court took into account that Allah Rakha had been facing the consequences of his misconduct since 2015, had made some repayment, and had subsequently been dismissed from service. While acknowledging that individuals within the justice system have a heavier responsibility for integrity, the court deemed the reduction in sentence to be fair given the circumstances. The reduced sentence would run concurrently with the sentences for coordinate charges, including the pre-trial period.---Citations/Precedents:Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947.Section 382-B of the Criminal Procedure Code, which deals with the benefit of cumulative sentences.

Summary: Bail granted---Background:Noor Muhammad, the petitioner, challenged the order of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, dated 11.11.2019, which dismissed his bail application.The petitioner was involved in a case registered under FIR No.123/2017, involving charges under Sections 302, 324, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC), registered at police station Talagang, District Chakwal.The petitioner's bail application was previously dismissed by the trial court and later by the Lahore High Court, prompting him to file a petition before the Supreme Court of Pakistan.---Issues:Whether the petitioner's delayed arrest and contradictory witness statements warranted his release on bail.Whether the recovery of evidence after a significant lapse of time affected its credibility.Whether the petitioner's case fell within the ambit of "further inquiry" under section 497(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C), justifying bail.---Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The Supreme Court of Pakistan converted the petitioner's criminal petition into an appeal and granted leave.Considering the delayed arrest, contradictory witness statements, and the questionable recovery of evidence, the court found merit in the petitioner's case for bail.Citing Article 163 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, the court deemed the use of a special oath as contrary to law.Emphasizing the importance of liberty, the court granted bail to the petitioner, subject to the furnishing of bail bonds.The court clarified that its observations were tentative and had no bearing on the proceedings before the trial court.---Citations/Precedents:"ABDUL KHALIQ versus THE STATE" (1996 SCMR 1553)

Summary: Background: In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, prisoners from various jails in Azad Jammu and Kashmir filed applications seeking bail, citing the danger to their lives due to the virus's spread. The High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir, after receiving comments from relevant authorities, issued an order on March 27, 2020, granting conditional bail to a large number of prisoners. This order was challenged in the Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir by various appellants, including state authorities and victims' legal representatives. ----Issues: 1- Whether the High Court had the jurisdiction to grant bail to prisoners under the circumstances of the COVID-19 pandemic. 2- Whether the High Court followed due process and legal requirements in granting bail. 3- Whether the High Court's order was justified given the potential public safety and legal implications. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order, finding it to be without jurisdiction and contrary to legal principles. The Supreme Court emphasized that: The High Court overstepped its jurisdiction by bypassing the special forums and procedures established under law, such as the Shariat Appellate Bench of the High Court for certain criminal matters. The applications for bail were improperly filed and lacked necessary details about the offenses and legal standing of the applicants. The High Court did not have the authority to issue a general order for bail under its inherent jurisdiction without following the statutory framework and ensuring proper notice to the victims' legal heirs. The Supreme Court of Pakistan had already addressed similar issues and ruled against such wholesale release of prisoners in the context of COVID-19. The Supreme Court directed the re-arrest of the released prisoners and provided that the Jail authorities could manage the health crisis under existing prison regulations without needing judicial intervention. ----Citations/Precedents: Muhammad Ali vs. Additional IG Faisalabad [PLD 2014 SC 753] Dr. Imran Khattak and another vs. Mst. Sofia Waqar Khattak and others [2014 SCMR 122] Raja Muhammad Nadeem vs. The State & another [Criminal Petition No.299 of 2020] The Prisoners Act, 1894

Summary: Summary pending