Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Bail granted---Background: The petitioner sought bail after being charged under section 489-F of the Penal Code for dishonor of cheques issued to settle a debt owed to the complainant. Despite previous rejections of bail applications by lower courts, the petitioner appealed for bail. ----Issues: Whether the offense falls within the prohibitory clause of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C) to justify the denial of bail. Whether exceptional circumstances exist warranting bail despite prior rejections. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The court determined that the offense did not fall under the prohibitory clause of the Cr.P.C, necessitating a favorable interpretation for the accused. Citing various precedents, the court emphasized the importance of stretching the law in favor of the accused. Given the absence of a criminal history and exceptional circumstances, the court granted bail to the petitioner. Bail was contingent upon the petitioner furnishing a specified bail bond with a surety to the satisfaction of the trial court. ----Citations/Precedents: Zafar Iqbal v. Muhammad Anwar and others (2009 SCMR 1488) Shameel v. The State and others (2009 SCMR 174) Riaz Jaffar Natiq v. Muhammad Nadeem Dar and others (2011 SCMR 1708) Sikandar Zaman v. The State and others (2011 SCMR 870)

Summary: The petitioner had initially filed a petition under Section 25 of the Guardian and Wards Act, 1890, seeking the appointment of a guardian for Mst. Sadia Bibi. This petition was accepted by the Guardian Judge in Kamalia, leading to a judgment and decree. However, respondent No. 3, who was married to the petitioner and had three children with him, including Mst. Sadia Bibi, filed an appeal with the Additional District Judge in Kamalia. This appeal was accepted in a judgment and decree, prompting the petitioner to file the writ petition in question. The petitioner argued that custody should be granted to him because two of their children were already in his custody, and separating Mst. Sadia Bibi from her siblings would negatively affect her health and emotional well-being. In response, the counsel for respondent No. 3 argued that her second husband had already passed away, rendering the objection about her second marriage irrelevant. It was also mentioned that Mst. Sadia Bibi had been living with her mother since birth and was deeply attached to her. The counsel contended that the petitioner's real motive was to evade paying maintenance allowance and that there was no substitute for a mother's care. After considering the arguments and reviewing the record, the court noted that respondent No. 3 had been divorced by the petitioner while she was pregnant, and Mst. Sadia Bibi was born during the period of separation. The court also observed that the petitioner had not paid maintenance for Mst. Sadia Bibi, suggesting a lack of attachment. Citing established legal principles emphasizing the importance of a mother's care, the court dismissed the petition, ruling in favor of respondent No. 3's custody of Mst. Sadia Bibi.

Summary: Order ---- Withdrawn through private settlement.

Summary: Summary Pending