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

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: -----Seeking direction to set aside the awarding the project through PPRA mode instead of PPA (a) Constitutional Law – Outsourcing of Pension Disbursement – Fundamental Rights of Pensioners ----Constitution of Pakistan, Arts. 4, 9, 14 & 25 – Outsourcing of Pension Payments by Pakistan Post – Deduction of Service Fee from Pensioners Petitioner challenged the outsourcing of pension disbursement services by Pakistan Post to a private bank (Habib Bank Limited) and the deduction of service fees from pension payments. The court observed that Pakistan Post failed to justify its legal authority to outsource pension services, deduct fees from pensioners, and assume functions traditionally assigned to the Accountant General of Pakistan and Controller of Military Accounts. The court expressed concern that such deductions violate constitutionally guaranteed fundamental rights and impose an unnecessary financial burden on the exchequer. -----Key Questions Raised by the Court: i. Under what legal authority does Pakistan Post disburse pensions? ii. Why are retired armed forces employees (grades 1–16) treated differently from higher grades? iii. Why cannot pensions be disbursed directly by established institutions like the Accountant General of Pakistan? iv. Can Pakistan Post lawfully deduct service fees from pension payments? v. If deductions are unlawful, should the deducted amounts be refunded, and by whom? vi. Is outsourcing pension disbursement services to a private bank legally permissible? -----Disposition: The Accountant General of Pakistan and Controller of Military Accounts were appointed as amici curiae to submit a joint report addressing the raised queries. Pakistan Post and the Ministry of Communication were directed to provide comments justifying their actions.

Summary: Apeal u/s 410 Cr.P.C. against the judgement dated 13.02.2010 passed by Mr. Masroor Zaman, Special Judge Central, Rawalpindi., 7 year

Summary: Chapter VI of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides the mechanism for issuance of process tocompel appearance of an accused person or anybody else through issuance of summonses and warrants and procedure by Magistrate before whom person arrested is brought when any persons is arrested in execution of warrant issued under Chapter-VI, the Judicial Magistrate before whom person arrested is brought, shall, at the first instance, under clause (1) of section 86, issue direction for his removal of custody to the relevant Court, if such direction is not issued, under first proviso, if the offence is bailable or direction has been made under section 76 of the Warrant, shall takebail bonds from him by forwarding the same to the court which issued the warrant and if the offence is not bailable or no direction has been endorsed under section 76 of the warrant, in that case, under second proviso, the Sessions Judge concerned, subject to the provisions of section 497 Cr.P.C and for sufficient reasons, release the person on an interim bail on such bond or security as thinks fit and direct the person to appear by a specified date before the Court which issued the warrant and forward the bond to that Court. In the instant case, neither the petitioner, as per contents of the FIR No. 820/20, referred to above, is nominated as an accused, nor warrant has been issued against him under sections 75/87 Cr.P.C and he has been arrested under section 54 Cr.P.C, therefore he was to be dealt with under the provisions of section 60 Cr.P.C, according to which a police officer makingan arrest without warrant shall, without unnecessary delay and subject to the provisions herein contained as to bail, take or send the person arrested before a Magistrate having jurisdiction in the case. When the petitioner has been arrested by the local police under section 54 Cr.P.C and is behind the bars since 08.06.2020 but neither any warrant has been issued against him nor there is correspondence in black and white have been made regarding shifting of the petitioner-accused to Punjab, as depicted from the comments submitted by the Superintendent, Central Prison, Peshawar, therefore, in the present scenario, the petitioner-accused cannot be kept in Jail and that too for indefinite period.