Summary: Pending

Summary: Revision is maintainable against an order refusing to set aside ex-parte Judgment and Decree under Rule 4 of Order XXXVII of the CPC. Limitation of 3 years under Article 181 of the Limitation Act, 1908 is applicable to an application under Rule 4 ibid when service is not proved.

Summary: Pending

Summary: Bail Denied--The petitioner was accused of cyberstalking and sending defamatory messages and photographs of the complainant's daughter-in-law to her husband. The matter was investigated by the Federal Investigating Agency, which secured devices linked to the impugned communication. The petitioner's admission confirmed his involvement, leading to embarrassment for the family.The petitioner sought post-arrest bail, but his attempts were unsuccessful, culminating in an order by a learned Judge-in-Chamber of the Peshawar High Court on October 22, 2021. The petitioner applied for leave to appeal this decision, primarily contending that the alleged offenses did not fall under the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, and that since the investigation was complete, there was no justification to deviate from the general rule in favor of granting bail.Upon hearing arguments and reviewing the record, the Supreme Court considered that while it is common for bail to be granted after the conclusion of investigations in cases outside the scope of "prohibition," there are limits to this practice. In this instance, the privacy of a young woman had been violated, leading to significant distress for her family and even jeopardizing her marriage. The incident was reported by her father-in-law. Given the circumstances, the Court was not persuaded by the arguments presented at the bar to take a different view than that taken by the lower courts. Consequently, the petition was rejected, and leave to appeal was denied.

Summary: Bail Allowed---The petitioner, a maid employed near Police Station Shalimar Islamabad, was accused of stealing gold ornaments worth Rs. 2.5 million by her employer. She had been in custody since April 24, 2021. During the investigation, some of the stolen articles were recovered based on her disclosure.The petitioner had been denied bail by various courts, including the Islamabad High Court. The State argued that since the trial was progressing rapidly, her release at this stage would not be appropriate.However, the Supreme Court observed that the charges against the petitioner did not fall under the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. As a female with no prior record, the petitioner's eligibility for release on bail was not restricted by statute. The Court noted that the recovery attributed to the petitioner on April 25, 2021, allegedly conducted by a male police officer, was a matter to be determined during the trial. Since she was taken into custody on April 24, 2021, any violation of the relevant legal provisions related to custody would be assessed during the trial. Therefore, the Court found that the case warranted granting bail. The petition was converted into an appeal and allowed. The petitioner was granted post-arrest bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties of the same amount to the satisfaction of the trial court.

Summary: Key Facts:Mst. Kainat Bibi, a maid, was accused by her employer of stealing gold ornaments worth Rs.2.5 million.Based on her disclosure, she led to the recovery of some of the stolen items.She had been in custody since April 24, 2021, and was denied bail throughout the proceedings, most recently by the Islamabad High Court.The Advocate General argued against granting bail, citing the ongoing trial's progress and its imminent conclusion.----Issues:Does the continuous detention of Mst. Kainat Bibi serve any legal or procedural purpose?Is Mst. Kainat Bibi entitled to bail given the circumstances and nature of the offenses charged?----Holding:The Supreme Court held that the offenses did not fall under the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898.Considering Mst. Kainat Bibi is a female with no past criminal record, the statutory provisions for her release are broader, making her continued detention unnecessary.The court questioned the evidentiary value of the recovered items, especially since the recovery was conducted in violation of legal procedures (subsection 5 of Section 176 of the Code).---Conclusion:The Supreme Court converted the petition into an appeal and granted it.Mst. Kainat Bibi was admitted to post-arrest bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs.50,000 with two sureties of the same amount to the satisfaction of the trial court.

Summary: Background: The appellant, a Deputy Secretary B-18 at the Azad Jammu & Kashmir Legislative Assembly, challenged the retrospective promotion of a colleague (respondent No. 7) to the same post, claiming it affected his own promotion and seniority. The Service Tribunal dismissed his appeal, prompting this further appeal to the Supreme Court. ----Issues: 1- Whether the retrospective promotion of respondent No. 7 to Deputy Secretary B-18 with effect from 19.04.2012 was lawful. 2- Whether the Service Tribunal erred in dismissing the appellant's appeal against the retrospective promotion of respondent No. 7. 3- Whether the appellant's service conditions and seniority were unjustly affected by the said retrospective promotion. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: --Retrospective Promotion: The Supreme Court found that the retrospective promotion of respondent No. 7 was granted without proper consideration of the appellant's seniority and service conditions. The notification dated 26.06.2018 granting retrospective promotion to respondent No. 7 was vacated. --Service Tribunal's Decision: The Service Tribunal's dismissal of the appellant's appeal was based on the erroneous conclusion that the appellant had not challenged the departmental committee's recommendations or the notification dated 2.12.2013. The Supreme Court held that the Service Tribunal's decision was flawed as the appellant was not originally aggrieved by the departmental committee's recommendations or the notification. --Appellant's Seniority and Service Conditions: The appellant, being senior to respondent No. 7, was entitled to be promoted with retrospective effect from 19.04.2012. The appellant's claim was upheld, and he was granted retrospective promotion from 19.04.2012.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending.