Summary: (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) ----S. 497---Post-arrest bail---Double murder---Role of exhortation (lalkara)---Prohibitory clause---Petitioner sought post-arrest bail in FIR No.234/2020 registered under Ss. 302 & 34, PPC for an occurrence arising out of land dispute in which two real brothers lost their lives after sustaining multiple firearm injuries---Specific role attributed to petitioner was that of exhorting (lalkara) his co-accused, who thereafter fired repeatedly causing death of both the victims---Held, that although generally bail is granted to an accused assigned role of lalkara, such principle is not inflexible---Court is required to tentatively assess the background, degree of interest of accused in the crime and his position of influence over co-accused---Where exhortation is commanding in nature and made by a person in dominance over assailants, it constitutes a sufficient overt act attracting the prohibitory clause---Petitioner, being closely related to principal accused and having exercised influence over them, was prima facie involved in commission of offence---Post-arrest bail rightly declined. (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860) ----Ss. 34 & 114---Common intention and abetment---Lalkara as overt act---Held, that exhortation at the crime scene by a person having deep-rooted interest and authority over co-accused amounts to instigation and active participation in crime---Even mere presence coupled with commanding lalkara may constitute an overt act sufficient to attract criminal liability under Ss. 34 & 114, PPC. (c) Criminal trial---Tentative assessment at bail stage---Principles---Held, that at bail stage Court is not to conduct deeper appreciation of evidence but is to see whether reasonable grounds exist for believing that accused has committed a non-bailable offence---Where material on record prima facie shows that aggression was launched on exhortation of petitioner, concession of bail cannot be extended. Cited Cases: • Chiragh Din and others v. The State PLD 1967 SC 340 • Muhammad Ashraf v. The State 1996 MLD 884 (Lahore) • Noor v. The State 1994 PCr.LJ 311 • Akhtar Ijaz Khan Yazdani v. The State 1998 SD 130 Disposition: Post-arrest bail petition dismissed; petitioner held prima facie involved in commission of double murder through commanding exhortation; observations declared tentative and not to prejudice the merits of the case at trial.

Summary: Background:The petitioner, a Shiite Muslim, sought a mandamus for security arrangements for a procession during Moharram-ul-Haram, an annual ritual in his village.The High Court disposed of the request with the Deputy Commissioner Chakwal being instructed to provide security as per previous practice, ensuring no untoward situation occurs.The petitioner's review application and subsequent Intra Court Appeal were dismissed as the event had already passed peacefully.---Issues:Whether the High Court was required to issue permanent security arrangements for the Moharram-ul-Haram procession.Whether the discretion of State functionaries in maintaining peace should be respected.---Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The court emphasized the right of every citizen to profess, practice, and propagate their religion, subject to law, public order, and morality.While ideally, religious practices should not require state intervention, the deteriorating security situation has made routine events security nightmares.State functionaries tasked with maintaining peace should be given discretion to evaluate threats and take appropriate measures without judicial interference.Security measures have financial impacts on the public exchequer, and regulation of freedom is essential for larger public interest.The court upheld the decision of the Judge-in-Chamber to heed the report submitted by the Deputy Commissioner Chakwal, as the peaceful conclusion of the event vindicated his position.The petition was dismissed, and leave was declined.---Citations/Precedents:Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Civil revision, against judgment dated 11.05.16

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Seeking direction for handing over the (Bear) kept at islamabad to the petitioner for transporatation to Balkasar Bear sanctuary.

Summary: Background:Muhammad Ashraf, the petitioner, was convicted for his involvement in a family brawl that resulted in the death of one person and injuries to others. He appealed against his conviction, arguing that he was innocent and wrongly implicated in the incident.---Issues:Whether Muhammad Ashraf's conviction was justified based on the evidence presented.Whether there were any flaws or contradictions in the prosecution's case against him.Whether Muhammad Ashraf's presence at the scene of the incident was established beyond reasonable doubt.---Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The court examined the evidence presented during the trial, including witness testimonies and medical reports. It found that the witnesses, who were also victims of the incident, provided detailed and consistent accounts of what transpired. The court dismissed the argument that Muhammad Ashraf was innocently caught in the brawl, noting that the witnesses' testimonies were corroborated by medical evidence.The court also addressed the defense's attempt to discredit the witnesses' testimonies by selectively quoting a statement from one witness. It clarified that the quoted statement, when read in context, did not support the defense's argument of Muhammad Ashraf's absence during the incident.Furthermore, the court considered the recovery of a weapon, consistent with the injuries sustained by the victims, as evidence supporting Muhammad Ashraf's culpability. Despite the exclusion of this evidence by the High Court, the Supreme Court deemed it relevant.Ultimately, the court upheld Muhammad Ashraf's conviction, concluding that the lower courts had correctly assessed the evidence and found him guilty. The petition was dismissed, and leave was declined.