Summary: Background:The Supreme Court convened a Suo Moto Case regarding combating the COVID-19 pandemic in Pakistan.Various representatives from federal and provincial governments, regulatory authorities, and concerned organizations attended the hearing.Reports were submitted by the National Disaster Management Authority (NDMA), Plant Protection Department, Governments of Punjab, Sindh, KPK, and Gilgit Baltistan.---Issues:Lack of transparency in NDMA's procurement of machinery for N95 masks production.Approval sought by NDMA for import of unregistered drugs.Operational status of aircraft for locust control.Verification of pilots' licenses and degrees.Allocation of funds for luxury vehicles by the Sindh Government.Inadequate measures for dealing with COVID-19 and related issues.---Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:NDMA directed to provide details of purchases, payments, and taxes related to N95 masks production.NDMA asked to explain special favor given to a company for machinery import.NDMA's request for importing unregistered drugs subject to conditions from DRAP.DG Civil Aviation Authority ordered to appear and explain the issue of fake pilot licenses.CEOs of airlines to provide reports on pilot verification.Sindh Government restrained from allocating funds for luxury vehicles until further notice.Concerns raised about Sindh Government's budget allocation and lack of funds for essential services.Government departments directed to take strict action against hoarders of COVID-19 related supplies.DRAP and relevant authorities instructed to ensure availability and reasonable pricing of essential medical supplies.Adjourned to a date after three weeks.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Seeks direction upon SHO PS Tarnol for registering FIR on Complaint of petitioner

Summary: S. 60 and 99 (2) (f) of the Cantonment Act, 1924, alongwith the provisions of KP Waqf properties Ordinance, 1979 and, Article-165 and 165-A of the Constitution are discussed.

Summary: (a) Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997)-------S. 9(c)---Possession of narcotics---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Scope---Accused was alleged to have been found in possession of 1500 grams ofcharas---Report of Forensic Laboratory did not give the details of full protocols andthe test applied at the time of analysis of sample of narcotics rather it simplymentioned that certain tests were conducted and contraband material recovered inthe case was charas---Appeal was allowed and the impugned judgment was set aside,in circumstances. The State through Regional Director ANF v. Imam Bakhsh and others 2018SCMR 2039 and Khair-ul-Bashar v. The State 2019 SCMR 930 rel.(b) Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997)-------S. 9---Possession of narcotics---Scope---Provisions of the Control of NarcoticSubstances Act, 1997, provide stringent punishments, therefore, their proof has to beconstrued strictly and the benefit of any doubt in the prosecution case must beextended to the accused. Muhammad Hashim v. The State PLD 2004 SC 856 and Ameer Zeb v. TheState PLD 2012 SC 380 ref.(c) Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997)-------S. 36---Report of Government Analyst---Scope---Any report failing to describetherein the details of full protocols and the tests applied would be inconclusive,unreliable, suspicious and untrustworthy and will not meet the evidentiarypresumption attached to a report of the Government Analyst under S.36(2) of theControl of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997.(d) Criminal trial-------Benefit of doubt---Scope---Single circumstance creating reasonable doubt wouldbe sufficient to cast doubt about veracity of prosecution case and the benefit of saiddoubt has to be extended in favour of the accused not as a matter of grace orconcession but as a matter of right.

Summary: Bail denied---Background:The case involves a double murder incident that occurred on 05.02.2016 in Rashid Amin Chowk, where members of one criminal group were fired upon by their opponents, resulting in the deaths of two individuals. The assailants, including the petitioner, allegedly conspired to commit the murders as part of a plan to retaliate against the opposing group.---Issues:Whether the petitioner, along with others, committed a heinous act of double murder with the intention to create a false counter-narrative.Whether the petitioner is eligible for bail under section 497(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) considering the delay in the trial proceedings.---Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The petitioner, along with co-accused, allegedly committed the double murder with the intention to create a false counter-narrative against the opposing group. The attack was characterized by its brutality and premeditated nature, aiming to silence the victims and manipulate the situation in favor of the assailants.The trial proceedings were significantly delayed due to the accused party's repeated absences from court hearings, demonstrating their attempts to manipulate and delay the judicial process. Despite efforts by the complainant to seek police protection, the accused party continued to evade the legal process, indicating their disregard for the law.The court interpreted section 497(1) of the Cr.P.C., which provides for bail in cases of non-bailable offenses. While the provision allows for bail under certain circumstances, including trial delays, it also imposes restrictions, such as denying bail to previously convicted offenders and individuals deemed hardened, desperate, or dangerous criminals.In this case, the court concluded that the petitioner falls within the category of a hardened, desperate, and dangerous criminal, based on the nature of the offense and the petitioner's actions during the trial proceedings. As a result, the petitioner was not entitled to the benefit of bail under section 497(1) of the Cr.P.C., and the petition was dismissed.Precedents:MUHAMMAD HANIF versus THE STATE (PLD 1986 Karachi 437) MOUNDER and others versus THE STATE (PLD 1990 Supreme Court 934)

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending