Step 1 of 8
Welcome!
Let's learn how to use the search features effectively.
Step 1 of 7
Welcome!
Let's learn how to use the search features effectively.
Latest Judgments (All Jurisdictions within Pakistan)
GHULAM YASIN VS THE STATE
Summary: Summary pending.
GHULAM MUHAMMAD S VS THE STATE
Summary: Summary pending.
COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS VS ABDUL RASHIDCENTRAL EXCISE SALESTAX
Summary: Summary pending.
MANZOOR QADIR VS UNITED BANK LIMITED THROUGH BRANCH MANAGER
Summary: Summary pending.
MUHAMMAD AKHTAR SHERANI VS I I J AGOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB THROUGH CHIEFISECRETARY LAHORE
Summary: Summary pending.
MUHAMMAD ASLAM EX DEPUTY DIRECTOR AUDIT DISTRICT GOVT LAHORE REGION LAHORE VS AUDITOR GENERAL OF PAKISTANISLAMABAD
Summary: Summary pending.
JUMA KHAN VS THE STATE
Summary: Summary pending.
Juma Khan V. The State and another,
Summary: (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)-------S. 498---Pre-arrest bail, grant of---Pre-conditions---Consideration for pre-arrest bail and postarrest bail are entirely different---Extraordinary concession of pre-arrest bail can be granted onlyin cases of exceptional nature and that power can only be exercised when either arrest being forulterior motive such as humiliation; unjustified harassment; prosecution motivated to causeirreparable injury to reputation; motivation of police on political consideration; or when accusedhas been implicated falsely.Rana Muhammad Arshad v. Muhammad Rafique PLD 2009 SC 427 rel.(b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)-------S. 497(5)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.324---Pre-arrest bail, cancellation of---Attempt tocommit qatl-e-amd---Civil litigation---Trial Court granted pre-arrest bail to accused on twogrounds i.e. affidavits of injured witnesses and existence of civil dispute between parties---Validity---Both the grounds were capricious and whimsical and were of no avail to accused, asone of the deponents admitted time, place and mode of occurrence, while the other deponent wasnot eye-witness of occurrence---Existence of civil dispute between parties could not beconsidered a relevant factor for concession of anticipatory bail because it could have been also amotive to motivate accused for commission of alleged offence---Prima facie available datasuggested believing that accused had committed a non-bailable offence, thus he was not entitledfor extraordinary concession of anticipatory bail---If guilt of accused had been establishedthrough reliable evidence or bail granting order was perverse, capricious or whimsical, then itcould be reversed at any time and interest of justice also demanded that fair handed treatmentshould be meted out to prosecution---High Court set aside the order passed by Trial Courtgranting pre-arrest bail to accused---Bail was cancelled in circumstances.
MUHAMMAD ASIF R VS R T IF AMINA BIBI
Summary: Summary pending.
SAID MUHAMMAD VS MUHAMMAD SIRAJ UD DIN
Summary: Summary pending.