Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: BAHAR KHAN and 2 others-Respondents Islamic law- -Inheritance-Oral gift deed-Proof-Brother depriving sister from her share in inheritance-Deceased's son (respondent) sold part of the disputed property in which the daughter (appellant) had a 1/3 rd inheritance share-Suit filed by the daughter was decreed, however the High Court directed the son to pay the daughter 1/3 rd of the sale proceeds instead of 1/3rd share in the property-Legality-Legal heirs inherit property to the extent of his/ her share the very moment his/ her predecessor passes away-In the present case the inheritance mutation was procured in favour of the son (respondent) by fraud after the exclusion of the daughter (appellant) from the inherited property, with connivance of the revenue officials by concealing the fact of existence of the appellant-Hence, the son could not make out a case claiming ownership of the entire property of his late father to the exclusion of the daughter-Appellant being daughter of deceased, could not be deprived of her right in inherited property by any illegal mutation sanctioned at the behest of male heirs-High Court completely failed to apply the law and granted only 1/3rd share out of the sale price of Rs. 13,00,000/- to the daughter-Grant of 1/3rd share out of the sale price and exclusion of the daughter from the inheritance was against the law-Supreme Court cancelled the inheritance mutation and all subsequent mutations attested on the basis of the same, and gave directions that the revenue authorities shall mutate the entire property of late father of the parties afresh among his legal heirs i.e. son and the daughter, strictly in accordance with law, and that the property already sold out by the son shall be made part of his share while mutating the estate of the late father-Appeal was allowed. Farhan Aslam and others v. Mst. Nuzba Shaheen and another 2021 SCMR 179 and Shahro and others v. Mst. Fatima and others PLD 1998 SC 1512 ref.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----Ss. 497 & 498---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 324,337A(vi), 337F(iv), 114, 147, 148, 149 & 504---Attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, shajja-i-munaqillah, ghair-jaifah mudihah, abettor present when offence is committed, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly, intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace---Bail, refusal of---Severe /several injuries to multiple persons of complainant party---One applicant/accused was said to have caused hatchet injuries to a prosecution witness including, an injury under S.337A(vi), P.P.C, punishable for ten years---Second applicant/accused was said to have caused injuries to the complainant, and one of the injuries was under S.337F(iv), P.P.C, punishable for five years; while third applicant/accused had caused an injury to a lady of complainant party which injury had been opined by Medico-legal Officer as falling under S.337A(vi) P.P.C, punishable for ten years---Nature of injuries and the number of injured showed that applicants appeared at the spot with a pre-determined mind and inflicted severe and several injuries to at least four persons of complainant side---Not only individual role but collective approach of the applicants was a reflection of their intention to cause as much damage to the complainant party as possible and in exercise of such intention they severely beat the complainant party---Investigating Officer (IO) had also concluded in investigation that applicants were guilty of the offence and had referred them for a trial---No doubt, there was admitted enmity between the parties, but it cut both ways----If the complainant had a motive to implicate the accused on account of the enmity, then the accused also had a cause to wrong the complainant party---Therefore, unless the dispute was finally decided by the Trial Court, nothing favourable could be opined as far as role of the applicants was concerned, who appeared to be connected with the crime---As for delay, the record showed that on the very day complainant had approached the police and got a letter for treatment of the injured---It was the police who did not perform is duties and did not register the FIR there and then, and let the complainant leave the Police Station and come back after four days---Complainant had further explained that initially they were referred to one government hospital and from there they were sent to another Civil Hospital for treatment and after getting treatment, he lodged the FIR---Injuries caused by applicants to injured, prima facie, were serious in nature, punishable upto ten years in most cases---Case had recently been challaned, therefore, it would be in the interest of justice to let the Trial Court frame the charge and examine material witnesses first---Applicants were seeking bail without showing any mala fide on the part of complainant to falsely implicate them---Concession of pre-arrest bail was only for innocent persons, who from the face of record appeared to be falsely implicated in non-bailable offences---Applicants were not entitled for concession of pre/ post-arrest bail---Bail was refused to the applicants, in circumstances. Amanullah G. Malik for Applicants along with applicants (In Criminal Bail Application No. S-623 of 2023). Zulfiqar Ali Jatoi, Additional P.G for the State. Gul Mir Jatoi for the Complainant. Order Muhammad Iqbal Kalhoro, J .--- As per FIR, there is a dispute between parties over agricultural land. On 13.06.2023, when complainant, his sons Nadeem Ahmed, Rehmatullah and Naheed were present on their land, situated near village Warayo within jurisdiction of P.S, Tamachani, applicants along with other co-accused accosted them. No sooner they came than they started abusing complainant party and asked them to vacate the land. When complainant party resisted, applicants, who were armed with different weapons including hatchet, lathies and pistols attacked complainant party injuring four PWs, namely, Naheed, Nadeem Ahmed, Rehmatullah and Amanullah (the complainant himself). On cries of complainant party, the accused party left and thereafter complainant approached police for a letter, from there along with injured went to Government Hospital, Bagerji for treatment and from where they were referred to Civil Hospital, Sukkur. After getting first aid and treatment, complainant on 18.06.2023 appeared at P.S and registered the FIR. 2. Learned counsel for applicants submits that applicants are innocent and have falsely been implicated in this case; that there is on-going dispute between the parties over agricultural land and in fact it was free fight between the parties in which both parties received injuries, but at the instance of Nekmards, who assured them for a resolution of dispute, accused party did not approach the police for registration of FIR, whereas on 4th day, complainant party got FIR registered against applicants. Learned counsel has relied upon case law reported as Toto v. State (2017 PCr.LJ 239) to support his arguments. 3. Learned counsel for complainant and Additional P.G have opposed bail to the applicants on the ground that all three applicants have been assigned specific roles, hence they are not entitled to bail. 4. I have considered submissions of parties and perused material available on record. Applicant Ghulam Farooq is said to have caused hatchet injuries to PW-Rehmatullah causing him, amongst others, an injury under section 337A(vi) P.P.C, punishable for ten years, applicant Muhammad Siddique is said to have caused injuries to complainant Amanullah, one of the injury amongst others, is under section 337F(iv) P.P.C punishable for five years, applicant Rizwan has caused an injury to Naheed opined by Medico-legal Officer as 337A(vi) P.P.C, punishable for ten years. The nature of injuries and the number of injured show that applicants appeared at the, spot with a pre-determined mind and inflicted severe and several injuries to at least four PWs. Not only individual role but collective approach of the applicants is a reflection of their intention to cause as much damage to the complainant party as possible and in exercise of such intention in fact severally beat the complainant party. 5. The I.O has also concluded in investigation that applicants are guilty of the offence and has referred them for a trial. No doubt, there is admitted enmity between the parties, but it cuts both the ways. If the complainant has a motive to implicate the accused on account of the enmity, then the accused has also a cause wrong to the complainant party. Therefore, unless the dispute is finally decided by the trial Court, nothing favourable could be opined as far role of the applicants, who appears to be connected with the crime, is concerned. As to delay, the record shows that on the very day complainant had approached the police and got a letter for treatment of the injured. It was the police who did not perform their duties and registered the FIR then and there, and let the complainant leave P.S and come back after four days. Complainant has further explained that initially they were referred to government hospital, Bagerji and from where they were sent to Civil Hospital, Sukkur for treatment and after getting treatment, he lodged FIR. 6. The injuries caused by applicants to injured, prima facie, are serious in nature, punishable upto ten years in most cases. The case has recently been challaned. Therefore, in my view, it would be in the interest of justice to let the trial Court frame the charge and examine material witnesses first, after which the applicant Rizwan, who is under custody, can move a fresh bail application before the trial Court. Applicants Ghulam Farooq and Siddiquie are seeking pre-arrest bail without showing any mala fide on the part of complainant to falsely implicate them. The concession of pre-arrest bail is only for innocent persons, who from the face of record appear to be falsely implicated in a non-bailable offence to save them from arrest, which is otherwise requirement of law. 7. I, therefore, do not find the applicants to be entitled for concession of pre-arrest bail and post-arrest bail. Accordingly, both bail applications are dismissed and the order granting interim pre-arrest bail to the applicants in Crl. B.A.No.S-623 of 2023 by this Court is recalled. The observations made hereinabove are tentative in nature and shall not influence the trial Court while deciding the case on merits. These bail applications are disposed of accordingly. Office to place a signed copy of this order in captioned connected matter. MQ-G-18/Sindh Applications dismissed.

Summary: Background: The petitioners filed a constitutional petition challenging the validity of notifications issued by the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) concerning the schedule for local government elections in Sindh. The petitioners argued that these notifications were unconstitutional, arbitrary, and beyond the ECP's jurisdiction. They contended that the notifications were issued without proper consultation with the Sindh Government and violated various constitutional provisions and election laws. ----Issues: 1- Whether the ECP's notifications were issued without lawful authority and in excess of its jurisdiction. 2- Whether the ECP was properly constituted at the time of issuing the notifications. 3- Whether the impugned notifications violated the constitutional mandate and election laws. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The petitioners argued that the ECP's notifications were arbitrary and unconstitutional, citing that the ECP was not properly constituted when the notifications were issued. The court noted that the ECP, as a constitutional body, is responsible for organizing and conducting elections in Pakistan, and it enjoys administrative and financial autonomy. The court emphasized that according to Section 3(2) of the Election Act, the ECP can exercise its powers even if there are vacancies or absences among its members. Decisions made by the majority of the present members are considered valid. The court referred to previous judgments by the Supreme Court of Pakistan, which upheld that actions taken by the ECP are not invalidated due to the existence of vacancies or absences. The court found that the petitioners' argument lacked merit, as the ECP was functioning within its constitutional and legal framework. The court dismissed the petitioners' application for a restraining order, finding no inherent illegality or defect in the impugned notifications. ----Citations/Precedents: Syed Qaim Ali Shah through Attorney v. Election Commission of Pakistan through Secretary and 03 others, PLD 2015 Sindh 408: Highlighted the ECP's powers post-18th Amendment. Sardar sher Bahadar Khan and others v. Election Commission of Pakistan through Secretary, Election Commission, Islamabad and others, (PLD 2018 SC 97): Clarified that ECP decisions are valid even if not all members are present. Election Act, 2017: Section 3(2) allows the ECP to function with a majority of members.

Summary: Former Minister of PTI, Dr. Shireen Mazari files this writ against the placement of her name in ECL/PNIL

Summary: The petitioner has filed an instant writ petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, seeking the removal of her name from the Passport Control List (PCL) / Exit Control List (ECL). The petitioner learned about her inclusion in the PCL through media reports and contends that the action is discriminatory, violating her constitutional rights. The respondents argue that the petitioner is involved in criminal cases, and placing her name on the PCL is necessary to ensure her presence for investigation and trial. The court refers to a similar case involving Faisal Maqbool Shaikh, where the court ordered the removal of his name from the PCL. The Islamabad Police's report mentions the petitioner's involvement in criminal cases, but the petitioner argues that she has obtained bail and is facing trial in accordance with the law. The petitioner challenges the lack of show cause notice and argues that the placement on the PCL violates her fundamental rights. The court examines the relevant Passport Rules, highlighting that the criteria for placement on the PCL include involvement in anti-state activities, which the petitioner denies. The court emphasizes that the Federal Government's approval is required for placing names on the PCL, and no such approval has been provided in this case. The petitioner asserts that the placement on the PCL infringes on her fundamental rights to due process, liberty, life, and freedom of movement. The court references various legal precedents emphasizing the importance of fair and reasonable exercise of discretionary powers, especially regarding the right to travel. The petitioner contends that she has not been involved in anti-state activities, and the lack of approval from the Federal Government makes her inclusion on the PCL unlawful. The court concludes that the petitioner's fundamental rights have been violated, and her name should be removed from the PCL. --- In the case of Gen. (Retd.) Pervez Musharraf through Attorney v. Pakistan through Secretary Interior and others (PLD 2014 Sindh 389), the court clarified that the mere registration of a criminal case does not automatically warrant the inclusion of the accused on the Exit Control List (E.C.L). The court emphasized that bail, once granted, falls within the jurisdiction of the court to regulate the custody of the accused. Additionally, it was pointed out that the law provides procedures to address situations where an accused is absconding. ---- In the case of Riaz Ahmed v. Government of Pakistan & others (PLD 2014 Islamabad 29), the court underscored the fundamental right to movement/travel guaranteed under the Constitution and international agreements. The authorities were reminded of their obligation to resolve public issues fairly and promptly, highlighting that depriving a citizen of fundamental rights without due process, especially when no trial has taken place, is a violation of those rights. --- In Mian Ayaz Anwar v. Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Interior & 3 others (PLD 2010 Lahore 230), the court emphasized that the right to travel is an integral part of human liberty and a fundamental right guaranteed under Article 9 of the Constitution. The judgment recognized the significance of international travel in modern life and considered it a right to life as well as a right to liberty. The court stressed that any restriction on these fundamental rights must be in accordance with law, satisfying both substantive and procedural due process. ---- The case of Wajid Shams-ul-Hassan v. Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Interior (PLD 1997 Lahore 617) affirmed that the right of a citizen to travel abroad is a fundamental right protected by various articles of the Constitution. The court asserted that the registration of a criminal case alone cannot justify curtailing a citizen's fundamental rights. --- In conclusion, the court, relying on established legal principles and precedents, declared the placement of the petitioner's name on the Exit Control List unjustified, illegal, and without lawful authority. The court directed the removal of the petitioner's name from the list within a specified time frame.

Summary: Background:The case involves Mst. Sehat Bibi, the appellant, challenging the judgment and decree dated October 6, 2017, by the High Court of Balochistan in Civil Revision No. 22 of 2016. The appellant sought the restoration of her 1/3 share in the agricultural lands of late Daulat Khan situated in Mouza Boston, Tehsil Sibi, as opposed to receiving a 1/3 share of the sale price of the land as decreed by the High Court. The land in question was originally owned by late Daulat Khan, who passed away in 1980, leaving behind two legal heirs: Mst. Sehat Bibi and Bahar Khan, the respondent No. 1. Bahar Khan had taken control of the property and transferred it to his name through an alleged oral gift and later sold parts of the property to Muhammad Zakria, respondent No. 2.----Issues:The central issue before the Supreme Court was whether Mst. Sehat Bibi, as a co-sharer and legal heir, was entitled to a 1/3 share of the actual land inherited from her father, rather than just a 1/3 share of the sale proceeds from the land sold by Bahar Khan.-----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, holding that Mst. Sehat Bibi was indeed entitled to a 1/3 share of the entire property of late Daulat Khan, not just the sale proceeds. The Court found that the original mutation (Mutation No. 56 dated March 24, 1981), which transferred the entire property to Bahar Khan based on an alleged oral gift, was procured fraudulently, excluding Mst. Sehat Bibi from her rightful inheritance. The Court cancelled this mutation and all subsequent mutations based on it, directing the revenue authorities to re-mutate the entire property among the legal heirs, Mst. Sehat Bibi and Bahar Khan, in accordance with the law. The property already sold by Bahar Khan was to be included in his share of the inheritance.----Citations/Precedents:Farhan Aslam and others v. Mst. Nuzba Shaheen and another (2021 SCMR 179): This case reinforced the principle that legal heirs inherit property immediately upon the predecessor's death.Shahro and others v. Mst. Fatima and others (PLD 1998 SC 1512): This precedent highlighted that a daughter cannot be deprived of her right to inherited property by illegal mutations sanctioned in favor of male heirs.Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, Article 129(g): This legal provision allows for adverse inference to be drawn when the best evidence is withheld, supporting the conclusion that the mutation was fraudulently obtained to exclude Mst. Sehat Bibi from her inheritance.

Summary: Background:The appeal was filed against the judgment dated 30.09.2019 passed by the High Court of Balochistan, Quetta, in Constitution Petition No. 1120 of 2017. The High Court directed the appellants to regularize the services of the respondents and pay them arrears of salaries and allowances.---Issues:Whether the appellants were competent to regularize the services of the respondents.Whether the High Court's judgment was lawful and sustainable.Whether the respondents were entitled to regularization.---Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The Supreme Court held that appointments to posts in BPS-16 and above fell within the purview of the Balochistan Public Service Commission (BPSC) as per Rule 9(1)(a) of the Balochistan Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 2009, and Rule 3(i)(a) of the BPSC Functions Rules, 1982. Therefore, the appellants were not competent to regularize the services of the respondents without the involvement of the BPSC.The Court found that the High Court's decision lacked a legal basis and was unsustainable. The respondents' regularization was not supported by law, and the decision was based on discrimination.The respondents' case fell within the purview of the AP&T Rules and BPSC Functions Rules, mandating recruitment through the BPSC. Therefore, the High Court's decision was set aside, and the Government of Balochistan was directed to refer the posts to the BPSC for recruitment through fresh publication on open merit basis. The respondents were directed to participate in the recruitment process, and age limit restrictions were waived for them.