Summary: Summary pending

Summary: (a) Pakistan Penal Code (XLV of 1860): ----Ss. 302, 147, 148 & 149 – Bail Cancellation – Plea of Alibi – Evidentiary Standard The applicant sought cancellation of bail granted to the respondents accused of murdering the applicant's father. Respondent No.1, Jameel Ahmed, was specifically attributed with firing upon the deceased with a G-3 rifle, while Respondent No.2, Dil Murad, was alleged to have been present at the scene, armed with a Kalashnikov, and issuing threats of dire consequences. The plea of alibi raised by the accused was based on Call Detail Records (CDR) and affidavits, but the court held that such pleas cannot conclusively be determined at the bail stage and must be scrutinized during the trial. Reliance was placed on Omar Daraz v. The State (2004 SCMR 1019) and Muhammad Afzal v. The State (2012 SCMR 707). (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898): ----S. 497(1) & (2) – Bail – Cancellation – Distinction Between Grounds for Grant and Cancellation of Bail The court reiterated the principle that grounds for granting bail are distinct from those required for cancellation. Once bail has been granted, strong and exceptional grounds must exist for its cancellation. Grounds include misuse of bail, tampering with evidence, likelihood of abscondence, or if fresh incriminating material emerges. Reliance was placed on Tariq Bashir v. The State (PLD 1995 SC 34) and Abdul Majid Afridi v. The State (2022 SCMR 676). (c) Plea of Alibi – Bail Stage – Evidentiary Value: The court observed that the plea of alibi, supported by CDR records and affidavits, cannot be conclusively determined at the bail stage. The absence of recovery of the crime weapon does not entitle an accused to bail when strong direct evidence exists. Reliance was placed on Sardar Munir Ahmed Dogar v. The State (PLD 2004 SC 822). (d) Role Differentiation Between Co-Accused – Grant and Cancellation of Bail: Respondent No.1, Jameel Ahmed, was directly attributed with firing upon the deceased, corroborated by medical evidence, making his case fall under S. 497(1) Cr.P.C., and thus ineligible for bail. Respondent No.2, Dil Murad, however, was not ascribed any overt act beyond issuing threats, placing his case under S. 497(2) Cr.P.C., entitling him to the concession of bail. Reliance was placed on Jahanzeb v. The State (2021 SCMR 63) and Aqal Khan v. The State (2020 SCMR 1431). ----Disposition: The court partially allowed the application. The bail granted to Respondent No.1 was canceled due to the strong evidence against him. However, the bail of Respondent No.2 was upheld, with the applicant being granted liberty to seek cancellation of his bail if any violation of bail conditions occurs.

Summary: Acquittal granted----Background: The appellant was convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Chishtian, for narcotics possession under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. On October 12, 2020, the police, acting on a tip-off, apprehended him at Sheli Gharbi-wala Bridge and seized 1210 grams of charas. He was sentenced to four years and six months of rigorous imprisonment, along with a fine, and subsequently filed this appeal, challenging the conviction. -----Issues: 1- Whether the prosecution adequately proved the appellant's possession of the narcotics. -----2- Whether procedural lapses during investigation impacted the reliability of the evidence. -----3- Whether the burden of proof was met beyond a reasonable doubt in light of inconsistencies in the prosecution's case. -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: --Reliability of Identification and Informant's Information The prosecution did not clarify how ASI Muhammad Afzal recognized the appellant, as there was no prior acquaintance. Additionally, crucial eyewitnesses (members of the Eagle Squad) were not presented or recorded under Section 161 CrPC, which weakened the prosecution’s case. --Inconsistencies in Documentation The recovery memorandum, complaint, and other related documents showed identical handwriting, raising doubts about the events' chronology and authenticity. Past precedents were cited to show the impact of such inconsistencies on the prosecution's reliability. --Burden of Proof and Reasonable Doubt The court noted that the burden rests with the prosecution to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, a principle reinforced in both local and international legal precedents. Here, the inconsistencies in the investigation and procedural lapses failed to meet this standard. --Legal Principles on Acquittal Drawing on principles from Pakistani case law and international rulings, the court reiterated that any reasonable doubt, even if minor, entitles an accused to acquittal. The appeal was accepted, the conviction and sentence were set aside, and the appellant was acquitted. His surety was discharged, and he was released from custody, as the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt. -----Citations/Precedents: Zafar Khan v. The State (2022 SCMR 864) – Importance of recovery memo’s credibility. Khudadad v. Syed Ghazanfar Ali Shah (2022 SCMR 933) – Validity of judicial handwriting comparison. Tariq Pervez v. The State (1995 SCMR 1345) – Reasonable doubt principle. In re Winship (1970), USA – Burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Woolmington v. DPP (1935), UK – Presumption of innocence and prosecution’s duty. R. v. Lifchus (1997), Canada – Legal standards for reasonable doubt.

Summary: Background: This case concerns a writ petition challenging the decisions of the Additional District Judge and Civil Judge in Lahore related to the partition of a co-owned immovable property. The petitioner filed the writ petition under Article 199 of the Constitution, disputing the trial court’s decision to declare an internal auction unsuccessful and proceed with an external auction. The petitioner argued that the internal auction was not conducted properly and that the trial court did not follow the requirements of the Punjab Partition of Immovable Property Act, 2012, specifically regarding opportunities to submit offers and appear through an authorized representative. -----Issues: 1- Did the trial court adhere to the requirements of the Punjab Partition of Immovable Property Act, 2012, in conducting the internal auction? -----2- Did the petitioner demonstrate adequate willingness to participate in the internal auction as required by law? -----3- Were the lower courts correct in proceeding with an external auction after deeming the internal auction unsuccessful? -----Holding / Reasoning / Outcome: The Lahore High Court upheld the decisions of the lower courts, finding no merit in the petition. It reasoned as follows: --Application of Section 11(1) of the Punjab Partition of Immovable Property Act, 2012: Under Section 11(1), if any co-owner refuses to participate, if only one co-owner shows willingness to participate, or if an internal auction fails, the court may proceed with an external auction. The petitioner’s repeated absence and lack of substantive participation led the court to conclude that he was not genuinely interested in the internal auction. --Assessment of Willingness: The court defined “willingness” to mean readiness, eagerness, and active participation. The petitioner’s consistent failure to attend hearings or provide meaningful engagement indicated a lack of genuine intent. The court highlighted that the petitioner’s counsel’s repeated adjournment requests had delayed proceedings by approximately nine months. --Failure to Comply with Court Orders: The petitioner submitted an unsubstantiated air ticket to Dubai as justification for his absence on a critical hearing date. The court found this evidence insufficient and deemed it indicative of the petitioner’s disregard for court orders. The court dismissed the petition, concluding that the petitioner’s actions showed a lack of intent to participate in the auction, validating the trial court’s decision to proceed with an open auction. -----Citations / Precedents: Ehsan Ullah Chaudhry vs. The State, etc. – PLD 2023 Lahore 233 Chief Commissioner, Karachi and another vs. Mrs. Dina Sohrab Katrak - PLD 1959 SC 45 Ms. Sara Bibi vs. Muhammad Saleem and others (PLD 2021 Islamabad 236) Justice Qazi Faez Isa and others vs. President of Pakistan and others – PLD 2022 SC 119 Hazara Improvement Trust vs. Qaisra Elahi – 2005 SCMR 678

Summary: Summary Pending

Summary: Summary Pending

Summary: Summary Pending

Summary: Pending

Summary: Pending

Summary: Pending