Summary: Bail granted---Background:Shabran Khan, the petitioner, sought admission to bail after being held in custody since 30.12.2019. He was accused of conspiring to murder Muhammad Iqbal on 27.10.2019 within the jurisdiction of Police Station University, Dera Ismail Khan. The case was initially filed with suspects Latifullah, Saif-ur-Rehman, and Asghar, but later, Inayatullah and Dil Jan were implicated as the alleged assassins, with Aman Ullah introduced as a facilitator on behalf of the petitioner.---Issues:Whether the petitioner's culpability as the alleged mastermind behind the murder warrants further investigation.Whether the petitioner is eligible for bail under subsection 2 of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.---Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The court noted the restructuring of the case, with new suspects introduced and the petitioner implicated as the architect behind the crime. While refraining from commenting on the merits of the prosecution's case, the court found that the petitioner's alleged role in orchestrating the crime warranted further investigation. Therefore, the court converted the criminal petition into an appeal and allowed bail to the petitioner, who would be released upon furnishing a bond of Rs. 500,000/- with one surety to the satisfaction of the trial court.---Precedents/Citations:Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Petitioner seeks direction to respondent no.2 FBR not to issue any license to any applicant regarding the licensing process for the track & trace system for tobacco.

Summary: Detenue Mst. Yaseena Bibi D/o Gul Zareen was produced by the SHO concerned and her statement was recorded wherein she negated the allegations contained in the instant petition and stated that she was never married or engaged to the petitioner and she was residing with her parents with her free-will and consent who are taking care of her. She further stated that she also filed a complaint against the petitioners before the learned Illaqa Magistrate Mansehra for extending threats to her and her statement was also recorded before the said Court.Proceedings under Section 491 & 491-A Cr.P.C are summary in nature and are not intended to go beyond the summary consideration of the questions essentially relevant to the alleged detention i.e. whether a detenue is to be set at liberty and as a consequence thereof, be permitted to go with the person of his or her own choice, or to drop the proceedings when the detention is found legal. Court while deciding an application under Section 491/491-A Cr.P.C is not required to go into the question of status or relationship of the parties by holding full-fledged trial of the counter-claims and it should concern itself only with free will of the detenue. Petitioner claims that the detenue is his wife, however, the detenue as well as the respondent No. 4 have totally denied the said averment. It is inappropriate and undesirable, if not illegal, for the High Court to determine the fate of the couple by adjudicating the validity of marriage on the touchstone of the Injunctions of Islam, in the proceedings under Section 491 Cr.P.C.

Summary: 1. Narcotics was recovered on 26.04.2014, test samples received in FSL on 06.05.2014 after 10 days. Investigation Officer questioned regarding its safe custody, he stated that it was lying in the custody of Moharrir, but his statement was not recorded, nor abstract of Register 19 was collected and placed on file. The official who took the sample to the lab, also not examined. SO the recovery, its safe custody and its smooth transmission to Lab could not be established.3. It is turning to be a common practice with the invistigation officer that they are lacking their interest to collect the material evidence in the cases and even no heed is paid to collect the daily diaries from the police station. These are documents which can correctly explain the status of the wittnesses, their presence at the spot, the time they consume in reaching to the spot and names of police officials who accompany.4. If the two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused should be adopted.

Summary: The petitioner has filed this petition on the ground of shifting of her permanent abode from Charsadda to Dab Naguman, Peshawar, coupled with the fact that Domicile Certificate issued to him on 26-07-2007, contains her permanent Address as Dab Naguman, Peshawar, however, interesting aspect of the case is that in the year, 2007, the petitioner got her SSC from the Board Of Intermediate and Secondary Education Peshawar, in the Session 2007 (Annual), when she remained the student of Al-Amin Model School Shabqadar Fort Charsadda. Likewise, CNIC was issued to her on 20-12-2012,wherein her permanent address was mentioned as that of Charsadda. thereafter, till now she had never applied for change of her permanent address to NADRA authorities for issuance of CNIC with correct permanent address as that of Peshawar, which could easily be done by applying to the concerned authority under Rule 13 of National Database and Registration Authority(National Identity Card) Rules,2002. Another debatable angle of the matter in hand is the refusal of petitioner from the appointment on the plea of her being the resident of out District is based on thelegislative provision of section 3 of the ibid Act of 2011, the legality whereof were never remained inquestion either in this petition or in the earlier ones decided by this court, thus, the respondents, in strict compliance acted within the parameters of the Act (ibid), which is also the requirement of theConstitution, regarding which no plea of mala fide was taken by the petitioner. It is also settledprinciple of law that Authority must have exercised the power in accordance with law in view of Article4 of the Constitution which prescribed duty on each and every public functionary to act in accordancewith law and not in derogation of law, as Article 5(2) of the Constitution has mandated that obedienceto the Constitution and law is the inviolable obligation of every citizen wherever he may be and for every other person for the time being within Pakistan. To enjoy the protection of law and to be treated in accordance with law is the inalienable right of every citizen, wherever he may be, as enshrined by Article 4 of the Constitution. Any citizen of Pakistan can change the place of residence and claim protection of law as provided either in constitution or any other law but subject to limitation as provided therein.

Summary: The right of pre-emption is not established until thedemand be properly made in the presence of thewitnesses; and it is requisite that it be made as soonas possible after the sale is known; for the right ofpre-emption which is a feeble right, as it is disseizinganother of his property merely in order to apprehendinconvenience. It is, therefore, requisite thatpre-emptor without delay discover his intentions, bymaking the demand; which must be done in thepresence of witnesses, otherwise it cannot beafterword proved before the court. As defined byCHARLES HAMILTON in the commentary of HIDAYAby SHEIKH BURHANUDDIN ABI AL HASAN ALMARGHINANI Volume III Book XXXVIII (of SHUF AH)page 360.Moreover, Talb-i-ishhad was also not proved asthe Notice was not served upon the respondent/vendeerather the same was received by one Hazrat Umer son ofShamas-ul-Rafique, in such circumstances, when thenotice was not served upon the vendee talb-i-ish hadwould not be considered to have been proved.

Summary: Where the plaintiff/applicant establishes fraud, the defendant benefitting from the fraud and opposing the application of section 18, Limitation Act, must show that the plaintiff had clear and definite prior knowledge of the facts constituting the particular fraud and not merely clues or hints of the fraud, failing which limitation will run only from the date of actual knowledge of the fraud.

Summary: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)-------S. 497---Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), S. 9(c)---Transportation ofnarcotics---Bail, refusal of---Second bail application---Fresh grounds, non-availability of---Effect---Accused was apprehended while transporting 4000 grams of charas---High Courthad already rejected the bail application of accused on merits---Instant application was filedby the accused after 1 month and 20 days of the rejection of his earlier bail application---Nofresh ground was available to the accused to file the instant application---Petition wasdismissed, in circumstances.

Summary: Bail granted---Background:Muhammad Faisal, the petitioner, challenged the order of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench Rawalpindi dated 20.01.2020, which rejected his bail application in connection with FIR No. 524/2019 dated 05.08.2019, registered at police station Gujar Khan, District Rawalpindi. The FIR alleged that the petitioner, armed with a pistol .30 bore, fired two consecutive shots, causing injuries to the complainant.---Issues:Whether the injuries attributed to the petitioner are exaggerated by the prosecution, and if so, whether they warrant the petitioner's release on bail.Whether the delay in the declaration of injuries and the lack of evidence regarding the seriousness of the injuries affect the authenticity of the prosecution's case.Whether the injuries sustained by the complainant fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497 Cr.P.C, justifying the petitioner's release on bail.---Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The court found that while the FIR attributed two fire shots to the petitioner, the injuries sustained by the complainant suggested the possibility that they were in continuation of each other. Moreover, the petitioner's brief hospital stay and the lack of substantiated evidence regarding surgical intervention cast doubt on the severity of the injuries. Considering these factors, along with the delayed declaration of injuries and the feeble nature of the motive, the court concluded that the petitioner's case warranted further inquiry. Therefore, the court granted leave to appeal, converted the petition into an appeal, and allowed the petitioner's release on bail upon furnishing bail bonds.---Citations/Precedents:"Muhammad Umar vs. the State and another" (PLD 2004 Supreme Court 477)Section 497(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code