Summary: Background: In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, prisoners from various jails in Azad Jammu and Kashmir filed applications seeking bail, citing the danger to their lives due to the virus's spread. The High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir, after receiving comments from relevant authorities, issued an order on March 27, 2020, granting conditional bail to a large number of prisoners. This order was challenged in the Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir by various appellants, including state authorities and victims' legal representatives. ----Issues: 1- Whether the High Court had the jurisdiction to grant bail to prisoners under the circumstances of the COVID-19 pandemic. 2- Whether the High Court followed due process and legal requirements in granting bail. 3- Whether the High Court's order was justified given the potential public safety and legal implications. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order, finding it to be without jurisdiction and contrary to legal principles. The Supreme Court emphasized that: The High Court overstepped its jurisdiction by bypassing the special forums and procedures established under law, such as the Shariat Appellate Bench of the High Court for certain criminal matters. The applications for bail were improperly filed and lacked necessary details about the offenses and legal standing of the applicants. The High Court did not have the authority to issue a general order for bail under its inherent jurisdiction without following the statutory framework and ensuring proper notice to the victims' legal heirs. The Supreme Court of Pakistan had already addressed similar issues and ruled against such wholesale release of prisoners in the context of COVID-19. The Supreme Court directed the re-arrest of the released prisoners and provided that the Jail authorities could manage the health crisis under existing prison regulations without needing judicial intervention. ----Citations/Precedents: Muhammad Ali vs. Additional IG Faisalabad [PLD 2014 SC 753] Dr. Imran Khattak and another vs. Mst. Sofia Waqar Khattak and others [2014 SCMR 122] Raja Muhammad Nadeem vs. The State & another [Criminal Petition No.299 of 2020] The Prisoners Act, 1894

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Accused shall take all the available ground for release on bail in his application.Ground available not agitated would be deemed to be taken & refusal.

Summary: No person could be arrested under repeal law.

Summary: Ordinance promulgated ultra varies of Constitution.

Summary: Perusal of the record reveals that the learned trial Court while passing the impugned order, has referred to Section 21-A of West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964 which provides that a family Court may pass an interim order to preserve and protect any property in dispute.It is clear that these provisions are discretionary, however, such discretion was structured/limited by the subsequent words any property in dispute . The petitioner/husband in his reply to application for sealing of the dowry articles very frankly expressed his willingness to hand over the dowry articles lying in his house to the respondent/wife. Thus, there remained no the point of disagreement or dispute over the dowry articles lying in husband s house, and as such, in the absence any property in dispute, the scope of discretion of the Family Court under section 21-A of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964, vanished.Under section 21-A of the Family Courts Act, 1964, a family court has not been vested with powers to issue direction for any kind of sealing rather the words preserve and protect have been used in this section. The dictionary meaning of PRESERVE are to maintain (something) in its original or existing state or to keep safe from injury, harm, or destruction. Whereas, dictionary meaning of PROTECT are to keep safe from harm or injury or to cover or shield from exposure, injury, damage, or destruction.Family Court has illegally prevented the petitioner and inmates of his house to use the said rooms of their own house which by itself is violative of the provisions of Article 24(1) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. In-fact learned family court has passed the order to seal the rooms of the house of petitioner/husband which were not the subject matter of the family suit.

Summary: Bail granted---Background:Mukaram, the petitioner, challenged the order of the Peshawar High Court, which dismissed his bail application in connection with FIR No. 728/2016 dated 11.06.2016, registered under Section 302/324/34 PPC at police station Nowshera Kalan, District Nowshera. The incident involved the petitioner and three others allegedly engaging in indiscriminate firing, resulting in the death of the complainant's father due to a solitary injury.---Issues:Whether the petitioner's continued absence from the law for four years and subsequent arrest constitute sufficient grounds for denying bail.Whether the generalized nature of the allegation and the lack of specific attribution of the fatal injury to any individual warrant the petitioner's release on bail.Whether the recovery of only one empty from the place of occurrence weakens the prosecution's case against the petitioner.---Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The court found that the petitioner's continued absence, absconsion, and subsequent arrest were not sufficient to justify the denial of bail without evidence of direct involvement in the offense. Moreover, the lack of specific attribution of the fatal injury and the recovery of only one empty from the place of occurrence weakened the prosecution's case against the petitioner. Therefore, the court granted leave to appeal and converted the petition into an appeal, allowing the petitioner to be released on bail upon furnishing bail bonds.---Citations/Precedents:Article 185(3) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973Section 497(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code

Summary: Bail granted---Background:Shabran Khan, the petitioner, sought admission to bail after being held in custody since 30.12.2019. He was accused of conspiring to murder Muhammad Iqbal on 27.10.2019 within the jurisdiction of Police Station University, Dera Ismail Khan. The case was initially filed with suspects Latifullah, Saif-ur-Rehman, and Asghar, but later, Inayatullah and Dil Jan were implicated as the alleged assassins, with Aman Ullah introduced as a facilitator on behalf of the petitioner.---Issues:Whether the petitioner's culpability as the alleged mastermind behind the murder warrants further investigation.Whether the petitioner is eligible for bail under subsection 2 of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.---Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The court noted the restructuring of the case, with new suspects introduced and the petitioner implicated as the architect behind the crime. While refraining from commenting on the merits of the prosecution's case, the court found that the petitioner's alleged role in orchestrating the crime warranted further investigation. Therefore, the court converted the criminal petition into an appeal and allowed bail to the petitioner, who would be released upon furnishing a bond of Rs. 500,000/- with one surety to the satisfaction of the trial court.---Precedents/Citations:Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898