Summary: Acquittal --- (a) Pakistan Penal Code (XLV of 1860) ----S. 295-C—Blasphemy—Mens rea—Mental disorder—Benefit of doubt—Held, conviction under S. 295-C being penal and capital requires proof beyond reasonable doubt of both actus reus and mens rea—Medical Board (constituted per Supreme Court directions) diagnosed the appellant with Bipolar Affective Disorder, with contemporaneous symptoms of hypomania, grandiose/paranoid delusions and auditory hallucinations; the contents of the impugned letters themselves reflected delusional grandeur and flight of ideas—Medical opinion created a serious doubt regarding the existence of criminal intent at the relevant time; such doubt must go to the accused—Conviction and death sentence set aside; appellant acquitted. (b) Criminal law—Mental illness & criminal responsibility ----Safia Bano’s case applied—Constitution of Medical Board—Diagnosis and retrospective assessment—Where an accredited Board opined that, at the time of the alleged offence, the accused likely acted under delusional beliefs/hallucinations consistent with Bipolar Affective Disorder, the presumption of sanity is rebutted sufficiently to raise reasonable doubt as to mens rea—Benefit of doubt extended; capital conviction cannot stand. (c) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) ----Ss. 243 & 342—Plea of guilty/statement of accused—Prosecution’s burden—Even where an accused pleads guilty or admits authorship of a document, the prosecution’s duty to prove all ingredients of the offence beyond reasonable doubt persists—Failure to secure timely psychiatric evaluation; complainant SHO and investigating officer did not testify; proof that letters were communicated to copied recipients lacking—Prosecution shortcomings reinforced the doubt already raised by medical evidence. (d) Religious freedom / Evidentiary context ----Propagating own faith—Limits—Council of Islamic Ideology (interim report) noted that all faiths may be professed/practised/propagated subject to law and without encroaching others’ beliefs—On the facts, the letters were suffused with delusional assertions (e.g., claims to kingship of Israel, prophetic self-identification), corroborating the medical finding of disorder and undermining culpable intent rather than proving deliberate transgression. (e) Prisoners—Health care ----Treatment continuity—Appellant (over 74 years; incarcerated ~23 years, mostly on death row) had shown improvement on medication; Executive Director, Punjab Institute of Mental Health, directed to ensure treatment is not discontinued. Held: Medical Board’s diagnosis and the letters’ content created reasonable doubt as to mens rea for S. 295-C; prosecution otherwise failed to dispel doubt. Benefit of doubt extended; convictions of the Trial Court (18.07.2002) and High Court (30.06.2014) set aside. Appellant acquitted and to be released forthwith if not required in any other case; psychiatric treatment to continue. Cited Cases: • Safia Bano v. Home Department, Government of Punjab & others, PLD 2021 SC 488. Disposition: Appeal allowed—Conviction and death sentence set aside; appellant acquitted and released, treatment to continue.

Summary: Bail granted --- with Urdu Judgement --- Pending --- blasphemy case.

Summary: Acquittal --- ''Principle that laws cannot be applied retroactively to punish individuals for acts that were not offences at the time they were committed'' Pending --- blasphemy case.

Summary: Bail allowed --- The accused who is of unsound mind and incapable of making his defence should be released on sufficient security under Section 466, CrPC, as a rule while the order for detaining him in safe custody is to be made only as an exception when there is an apprehension that he would not be properly taken care of or prevented from doing injury to himself or any other person.

Summary: Bail granted------ Blasphemy case.

Summary: Bail granted---Background: The petitioners filed a criminal revision petition against the order dated 03.08.2023 passed by the Additional Session Judge Rawalakot, which rejected their post-arrest bail application. An FIR (No. 162/2023) was registered against them under Sections 295-B and 34 APC for allegedly throwing the Holy Quran and other Islamic books into a stream. The case also involved references sent by the Additional District Court for confirmation of the bail order and the rejection of the bail order. ----Issues: 1- Whether the rejection of the bail application by the Additional Session Judge was in accordance with law. 2- Whether the accused-petitioners should be granted bail based on the facts and circumstances of the case. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: --Rejection of Bail Application: The court found that the rejection of the bail application by the Additional Session Judge was not justified. The investigation had been completed, and there was no need to keep the accused-petitioners behind bars for an indefinite period, especially when the matter required further inquiry. --Granting of Bail: The court observed that the accused-petitioners had been in custody for several months, and the investigation had concluded. The court emphasized that bail should not be withheld as a punishment, and the accused could not be confined indefinitely without a fair trial. The court noted that the matter required further probe to determine the intentions of the accused, and whether the alleged act was committed intentionally or inadvertently. The court accepted the revision petition, set aside the order dated 03.08.2023 passed by the Additional Session Judge, and endorsed the bail-granting order by the Additional District Qazi. The accused-petitioners were ordered to be released on bail upon furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 50,000 each with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court or any Magistrate 1st Class Rawalakot. ----Citations/Precedents: PLD 2023 High Court (AJK) 11 - Muhammad Waseem Mughal v. The State: Tentative assessment at bail stage. 2022 Cr.L.J 4301 - Rekibuddin Ahmed v. State: Bail cannot be withheld as a matter of punishment. The court highlighted that the intention behind the alleged act plays a pivotal role, and adverse presumption regarding intention should not be taken at the bail stage. The decision to grant bail was made with the understanding that the observations were tentative and should not affect the final outcome of the case.

Summary: Background: The petitioner, a brother of the accused, challenged the rejection of an application for bail under Section 466 of the Cr.P.C. The accused was facing trial under Section 295-B PPC, and the petitioner argued that the accused was insane, supported by a medical board’s diagnosis of schizophrenia. The trial court rejected the bail application, referencing schizophrenia as a recoverable disease and citing the Supreme Court's ruling in the case of Mst. Safia Bano vs. Home Department, Government of Punjab (PLD 2017 SC 18). -----Issues: 1- Whether the trial court was correct in rejecting the bail application despite the medical board's diagnosis of the accused as insane. 2- Whether the proper procedure for determining the mental fitness of the accused had been followed by the trial court. -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The Lahore High Court set aside the trial court's order and held that the trial court had not adhered to the mandatory procedure under Sections 465 and 466 of the Cr.P.C. The court emphasized the need for a proper trial to determine the mental fitness of the accused through a “voir dire” (a trial within a trial). The court directed the trial court to obtain a fresh medical report following the procedure outlined by the Supreme Court in Mst. Safia Bano (PLD 2021 SC 488) and, if necessary, apply Section 466 for safe custody of the accused if found insane. The case was remanded to the trial court for compliance with the outlined legal processes. -----Citations/Precedents: Mst. Safia Bano vs. Home Department, Government of Punjab (PLD 2017 SC 18) Mst. Safia Bano and another vs. Home Department Government of Punjab through Secretary and others (PLD 2021 SC 488) Noor Jehan vs. The State (PLD 1980 Peshawar 103) Khan Baig vs. The State (PLD 1984 Lahore 434) Salim Uddin vs. The State (PLD 1985 Karachi 594) Said Rasool vs. Muhammad Fazil and another (1990 P Cr.L.J. 210) Muhammad Naseem vs. The State (1982 SCMR 754) Muhammad Saeed Waseer vs. D.F.C., Sialkot and others (1998 P Cr.L.J 1441) Shahbaz Ahmad vs. The State and others (2021 P Cr.L.J 1100)

Summary: Background: The petitioners were involved in a case registered under Section 11 of the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act, 2016 (PECA) along with Sections 295-A, 295-B, 295-C, 298-C, 34, and 109 of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC). The charges stemmed from the petitioners' use of a WhatsApp group to disseminate a banned translation of the Holy Quran, allegedly outraging religious sentiments and promoting sectarian hatred. During the trial, the petitioners moved to have the charges under the PPC dropped, citing a prior case (Sheraz Khan v. The State). However, the trial court dismissed the petition, leading to this revision. -----Issues: 1- Can the petitioners be tried under both PECA and PPC for the same transaction of events? -----2- Whether the petitioners’ actions fall under the jurisdiction of both PECA and PPC, and whether they can be charged and tried under both laws simultaneously. -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The court held that the petitioners' actions constituted offenses under both PECA and the PPC, and they could be tried for both sets of offenses in the same trial. The court emphasized that Section 235(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C) allows multiple offenses that arise from the same transaction to be tried together, even if they fall under different laws. The court found no merit in separating the offenses under PECA from those under the PPC because the allegations in the case, such as sharing a banned translation of the Quran via WhatsApp, formed part of the same transaction and were interlinked. As a result, trying the offenses separately could lead to conflicting decisions and unnecessary repetition. The court referenced Section 50 of PECA, which states that PECA’s provisions do not override the PPC, allowing the prosecution to proceed under both laws where applicable. The petition was dismissed, upholding the trial court’s decision. -----Citations/Precedents: Sheraz Khan v. The State (2022 P.Cr.L.J 203) ANF v. Muhammad Faizan and two others (PLD 2022 Lahore 700) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (Sections 235(1), 235(2), 4(c)) Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act, 2016 (Section 11, Section 28, Section 50)

Summary: Summary Pending --- blasphemy case.

Summary: Pending --- blasphemy case.