Summary: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b), 109, 201, 202 & 34---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss. 337, 338 & 339---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 13---Qatl-i-amd, abetment, causing disappearance of evidence of offence, or giving false information to screen offender, intentional omission to give information of an offence by a person bound to inform, common intention---Pardon to the accused---Scope---Accused-petitioner was charged that he along with his co-accused committed murder of the father of complainant---Widow of the deceased was also implicated in the case as one of the accused---Prosecution’s request qua producing widow of deceased/accused as a prosecution witness in the trial was allowed---Validity---Provision of S.337, Cr.P.C., described that the Court could tender pardon to the accused at any stage of the trial before the judgment was passed with a purpose of obtaining evidence and in the present case it had been done by the Trial Court---However, it was essential that accused/widow of deceased should have expressed her free consent and willingness to become approver in response to a request made by the complainant/ prosecution or by the Court itself, however, the impugned order was completely silent about the factum that whether widow of deceased (accused facing trial) had ever been given an option to exercise her discretion to become an approver and thereby agreed to record her statement with her free will and consent against her other principal and co-accused---In absence whereof, the requirement of the relevant Sections of law could not be considered to have been duly and legally fulfilled---In the present case, the complainant/son/legal heir of the deceased made request for production of widow of deceased/accused as prosecution witness through the Prosecutor coupled with the factum that she had been charged only under Ss.201/202, P.P.C, therefore, the bar contained in Ss.337 & 338, P.P.C., that no person shall be tendered pardon who was involved in an offence relating to hurt or qatl without permission of the victim or, as the case may be, of the heirs of the victim, did not apply to the present case---However, admittedly before the Trial Court neither any application by the accused facing trial qua grant of pardon containing an undertaking that she would make full and true disclosure of the circumstances within her knowledge about the murder of deceased was moved nor her consent in black and white floated upon the surface of the available record to show that she voluntarily opted to become an accomplice/approver against her co-accused (including petitioner herein) nor any Section of law could be quoted by the Trial Court in the impugned order under which accused facing trial was allowed to be produced as a prosecution witness because in case she was granted/tendered pardon, the same must be preceded by a condition that she would make full and true disclosure of the circumstances within her knowledge about the murder of the deceased and in case she failed to do so, she had to bear legal consequences thereof in light of S.339, Cr.P.C., etc.---Moreover, by virtue of Art.13 of the Constitution, an accused person could not be compelled to be a witness against himself/herself---Criminal revision petition was allowed, accordingly. Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto v. The State PLD 1979 Sc 53 rel. Malik Haider Ali for Petitioner. Sardar Basharat Khan, Additional Advocate General for the State. Aqeel-ur-Rehman Khan Jadoon for the Complainant. Date of hearing: 21st February, 2025.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Distinction between statement of an accomplice and a confession of co-accused before police explained; Discrepancies between autopsy and crime reports highlighted in ascertaining whether the occurrence was un-witnessed; PFSA report on CCTV footage without photogrammetry test insufficient to decipher identity of unknown assailant; Trail Court under a bounden duty to assess the admissibility of a video and photographic evidence before allowing it on record. Its failure cannot prejudice the appellant because Actus Curiae Neminem Gravabit.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Distinction between statement of an accomplice and a confession of co-accused before police explained; Discrepancies between autopsy and crime reports highlighted in ascertaining whether the occurrence was un-witnessed; PFSA report on CCTV footage without photogrammetry test insufficient to decipher identity of unknown assailant; Trail Court under a bounden duty to assess the admissibility of a video and photographic evidence before allowing it on record. Its failure cannot prejudice the appellant because Actus Curiae Neminem Gravabit. 681Family 43280/22 Muhammad Afzal Vs Judge Family Court etc Mr. Justice Ahmad Nadeem Arshad 28- 02- 2025 2025 LHC 495

Summary: (On appeal against the judgment dated 07.06.2021 passed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore in Crl. A. No. 86478-J of 2017 and M. R. No. 545 of 2017). Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302 (b), 331 & 338-G---Diyat, Arsh and Daman Fund Rules, 2007, Rr. 6 & 10---Qatl-i-amd---Inability to pay diyat---Petitioner/convict after compromise with legal heirs of deceased was unable to pay Diyat amount---Effect---Four types of remedies have been provided under Diyat, Arsh and Daman Fund Rules, 2007,for convicts/inmates unable to pay amounts of Diyat, Arsh or Daman subject to terms and conditions specified therein, namely (i) provisions of soft loans, (ii) grant out of the Fund, (iii) release on parole, and (iv) facilitation for jobs---Petitioner/convict was at liberty to approach administrative committee constituted under Diyat, Arsh and Daman Fund Rules, 2007 for management of the Fund---Petitioner/convict could also approach Trial Court under section 331 P.P.C. for payment of Diyat amount in installments---Petition was dismissed. 2003 SCMR 658; 2011 SCMR 1964; PLD 2012 SC 769 and Government of Punjab v. Abid Hussain PLD 2007 SC 315 rel.

Summary: (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----S. 497---Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act (XL of 2016), Ss. 20, 21, 22 & 24---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.109---Harassing, threatening, blackmailing and the unauthorized dissemination of obscene images and videos of complainant via social media, abetment---Bail, refusal of---Allegations against the applicant pertained to blackmail, threats and the unauthorized dissemination of obscene images and videos of complainant via social media platforms---During the course of the investigation, the applicant was apprehended by the FIA police and a VIVO mobile phone, linked to WhatsApp account number +923154528831, was seized---Said device was forwarded to the Forensic Laboratory, the findings of which substantiated the complainant's allegations---Said WhatsApp number was admittedly registered in the applicant's name---Allegations levelled against the applicant were of a grave nature, involving a blatant violation of the victim's dignity and privacy---Digital evidence gathered prima facie established the applicant's involvement in the un-authorized dissemination of obscene material---Act of distributing explicit content online had far-reaching consequences, not only for the victim but also for her immediate family members, subjecting them to profound psychological distress---Such acts could not be overlooked by the Courts in cases of that nature---Delay in lodging the FIR held no merit, as delayed in such cases were a common occurrence---Victims often refrain from reporting such incidents immediately due to fear and concern regarding their modesty---Present case exemplified a situation where judicial prudence demanded caution in the grant of bail---Permitting bail in such instances may establish an adverse precedent, potentially deterring victims from reporting similar offences in the future---Possibility of the applicant tampering with digital evidence or intimidating the victim could not be ruled out---Bail application was dismissed, in circumstances. Ahmad Khalid Butt v. The State 2011 SCMR 1016; Muhammad Daniyat Farrukh Ansari v. The State 2021 SCMR 557; Sohail Ahmad v. The State 2022 YLR 2210; Abdul Rehman v. the State 2024 YLR 1008; Abdul Rehman v. The State 2022 SCMR 526; Saleem Khalid v. the State 2021 PCr.LJ 119; Fakhar Zaman v. The State 2023 PCr.LJ 496 and Muhammad Haseeb v. The State 2024 PCr.LJ 1462 ref. Abdul Rehman v. The State 2022 SCMR 526; Muhammad Haseeb v. The State 2021 PCr.LJ 1462; Imran Sarwar v. The State 2022 PCr.LJ 71 and 2018 YLR 239 rel. (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----S. 497---Bail orders---Observations of the Court---Scope---Observations articulated in bail orders are tentative and should neither prejudice nor preempt the merits of the case at the stage of trial. Ghulam Ali Talpur for Applicant. Muhammad Idris for the Complainant. Bashir Ahmed Almani, Assistant Attorney General for the State. Date of hearing: 14th February, 2025. Order Abdul Hamid Bhurgri, J .--- The applicant, having been unsuccessful in securing bail from the Trial Court in Crime No.16 of 2024, registered at the Police Station FIA Cyber Crime Reporting Centre, Hyderabad, for offences under Sections 20, 21 and 24 of PECA-2016, now seeks post-arrest bail through the instant bail application. 2. According to the prosecution's case, as recorded in the FIR, Enquiry No.136 of 2024 was initiated at the Police Station FIA Cyber Crime Reporting Centre, Hyderabad, following a complaint lodged by Mst. Faiza Kausar against the applicant. The allegations pertain to blackmail, threats, and the unauthorised dissemination of her obscene images and videos via social media platforms. Upon investigation, the applicant was apprehended by the FIA police, and a VIVO mobile phone associated with a WhatsApp account (+923154528831) was recovered. The said device was subsequently dispatched to the Forensic Laboratory, the report of which substantiated the allegations levelled by the complainant. Consequently, the present FIR was formally registered against the applicant. 3. The learned counsel for the applicant has ardently contended that his client is innocent and has been falsely implicated by the complainant as a means of blackmail. He has argued that the FIR was lodged after an undue delay of approximately five months, for which no cogent explanation has been provided. Moreover, he asserts that there exists no tangible evidence on record to substantiate the claim that the applicant transmitted or shared the alleged images or videos of the complainant. The learned counsel further maintains that the FIA has misapplied the alleged offence and, therefore, it does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Since the applicant has remained incarcerated since his arrest and no further investigation is required, the counsel has prayed for his release on bail. In support of his plea, he has relied upon judicial precedents, including Ahmad Khalid Butt v. The State (2021 SCMR 1016), Muhammad Daniyal Farrukh Ansari v. The State (2021 SCMR 557), Sohail Ahmad v. The State (2022 YLR 2210) and Abdul Rehman v. The State (2024 YLR 1008). 4. Conversely, the learned counsel for the complainant has argued that the accused is explicitly nominated in the FIR, with specific allegations of blackmail and harassment. He has contended that the applicant used his own registered WhatsApp number to transmit the complainant's nude images and videos. The forensic laboratory report has conclusively affirmed the presence of such explicit content on the applicant's device. Given the gravity of the offence, which violates societal norms, the counsel has submitted that the applicant's plea for bail ought to be rejected. In substantiation of his argument, he has cited legal precedents, including Abdul Rehman v. The State (2022 SCMR 526), Saleem Khalid v. The State (2021 PCr.LJ 119) Fakhar Zaman v. The State (2023 PCr.LJ 496), and Muhammad Haseeb v. The State (2024 PCr.LJ 1462) 5. The learned Assistant Attorney General has argued that the prosecution has amassed compelling evidence that unequivocally links the applicant to the commission of the alleged offence. In light of the severity of the transgression and its implications for societal order, he has urged the court to withhold any leniency in this matter. 6. Having heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant, the learned counsel for the complainant, and the learned Assistant Attorney General, and upon meticulous examination of the case record, the following observations are made: 7. The complaint has been lodged by Mst. Faiza Kausar against the applicant, alleging blackmail, intimidation, and the dissemination of her obscene images and videos via social media platforms. During the course of the investigation, the applicant was apprehended by the FIA police, and a VIVO mobile phone, linked to WhatsApp account number +923154528831, was seized. The said device was forwarded to the Forensic Laboratory, the findings of which substantiated the complainant's allegations. The aforementioned WhatsApp number is admittedly registered in the applicant's name. 8. The allegations levelled against the applicant are of a grave nature, involving a blatant violation of the victim's dignity and privacy. The digital evidence gathered prima facie establishes the applicant's involvement in the unauthorised dissemination of obscene material. The act of distributing explicit content online has far-reaching consequences, not only for the victim but also for her immediate family members, subjecting them to profound psychological distress. Such acts cannot be overlooked by the courts in cases of this nature. 9. The contention of the applicant's counsel regarding the delay in lodging the FIR holds no merit, as delays in such cases are a common occurrence. Victims often refrain from reporting such incidents immediately due to fear and concerns regarding their modesty. As regards the applicant's counsel's argument that bail should be granted since the case does not fall within the prohibitory clause, it must be noted that the courts are obligated to consider the gravity of the offence and its repercussions on society. The present case exemplifies a situation where judicial prudence demands caution in the granting of bail. Permitting bail in such instances may establish an adverse precedent, potentially deterring victims from reporting similar offences in the future. 10. Reliance is placed on the case law, including Abdul Rehman v. The State (2022 SCMR 526), Muhammad Haseeb v. The State (2021 PCr.LJ 1462), Imran Sarwar v. The State (2022 PCr.LJ, page 71), and 2018 YLR 239. The possibility of the applicant tampering with digital evidence or intimidating the victim cannot be ruled out. Considering the gravity of the allegations, the nature of the offence, and the potential psychological impact on the victim, this court is not inclined to grant bail to the applicant at this stage. 11. Accordingly, the bail application is rejected along with pending listed applications (if any). 12. It is, however, categorically clarified that the observations articulated herein are tentative and shall neither prejudice nor pre-empt the merits of the case at the stage of trial. JK/Z-9/Sindh Applications dismissed.

Summary: (a) Constitution of Pakistan: ----Art. 199 Family Court—Interim maintenance—Constitutional jurisdiction—Maintainability—Scope—Petitioner/father filed constitutional petition challenging interim order of Family Judge fixing Rs. 12,000/- per month per child as interim maintenance for his three minor children—Petitioner contended that he was a laborer in Saudi Arabia earning only 1,000 Saudi Riyals per month, which barely covered his personal and familial expenses, and thus, the impugned order was beyond his financial capacity—Held, interim orders passed during pendency of suit are not appealable under S. 14(3) of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964—Constitutional jurisdiction under Art. 199 could not be invoked unless impugned order was passed without jurisdiction—Discretionary orders rendered by Family Court, even if alleged to be excessive or unjustified, do not fall within the exception of being without jurisdiction—Adequacy or inadequacy of maintenance is a factual matter requiring evidence and cannot be adjudicated in constitutional jurisdiction—High Court declined interference—Petition found to be misconceived and dismissed. -----Cited Cases: • Rashid Baig v. Muhammad Mansha, 2024 SCMR 1385 • Shameneh Haider v. Haider Ali Khan, 2018 CLC Note 43 (Sindh) • Dr. Samina Anayat v. ADJ & others, 2018 MLD 448 (Lahore) • Tahir Ayub Khan v. Alya Anwar, 2015 YLR 2364 • Syed Mohsin Shah v. Momal Aftab, 2013 MLD 1269 (Sindh) • Ameer Mehmood Hussain v. Naeha Aamer Sayad, 2011 MLD 1105 (Lahore) • Muhammad Sabir v. Mst. Azra Bibi, 2011 CLC 417 (Lahore) • Syed Sagheer Ahmed Naqvi v. Province of Sindh, 1996 SCMR 1165

Summary: (1) Section 35 of the Cr.P.C not only empowers trial Court to order running of sentences concurrently bail also the appellate or Revisional Court to pass such orders. (2) While passing such orders Courts in Pakistan are to take charitable view and unless there is some aggravating circumstance the sentences are to be ordered to seen concurrently.

Summary: Non Citizen of Pakistan cannot claim immunity from trial for offences under Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and schedule offences of KP Prevention of Corruption Act 1947 & Criminal Law Amendment Act 1958