Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Legal Issues:Whether the CMA seeking live broadcast of court proceedings is maintainable under review jurisdiction.Whether there exists a constitutional or statutory right for public broadcast/live streaming of court proceedings.Decision:The Court dismissed the CMA as not maintainable under review jurisdiction and lacking legal basis for public broadcast/live streaming of court proceedings.----Reasoning:The Court considered the objections raised by the respondents regarding the maintainability of the CMA and found merit in their argument that it was not filed under the proper jurisdiction.Despite acknowledging the importance of transparency in judicial proceedings, the Court concluded that the relief sought in the CMA was novel and lacked legal basis within the review jurisdiction.The Court emphasized the need for adherence to procedural law to prevent chaos in the judicial system.While acknowledging the evolving practice of courts worldwide regarding public broadcast/live streaming of proceedings, the Court referred the matter to the Chief Justice for further deliberation and appropriate action by the Full Court.---Conclusion:The Court dismissed the CMA on grounds of maintainability and lack of legal basis, while referring the matter of public broadcast/live streaming of court proceedings to the Chief Justice for further consideration by the Full Court.

Summary: Background:The case was brought before the Supreme Court of Pakistan in its original jurisdiction. The Court convened to address issues related to the government's response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Representatives from various governmental bodies and officials from different provinces and territories of Pakistan were present during the proceedings.---Issues:Whether the executive orders restricting inter-provincial movement issued by the Government of Punjab and the sealing of certain areas by the Government of Sindh were constitutional.Whether the governments were adequately prepared to handle affected areas and ensure the provision of basic necessities to residents.Whether healthcare workers and sanitary staff were being provided with necessary protections and support.The status of the registration of doctors amidst the pandemic.---Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The Supreme Court held that the executive orders restricting inter-provincial movement issued by the Government of Punjab were unconstitutional as they infringed upon Article 15 of the Constitution, which requires such restrictions to be enacted through legislation.The Court directed the Government of Sindh to provide justifications for the sealing of certain areas and ensure adequate measures for medical testing, screening, and provision of basic necessities to residents.The Court emphasized the need for governments to prioritize the safety and well-being of healthcare workers and sanitary staff, directing them to provide necessary protections and support.Regarding the registration of doctors, the Court noted that the issue was pending in courts and would be addressed soon in accordance with the law.The Court scheduled further hearings for April 20, 2020, and directed all governments to submit comprehensive reports on their COVID-19 response.---Citations/Precedents:Article 15 of the Constitution of Pakistan

Summary: Bail granted---Background:The petitioner, Babar Hussain, sought leave to appeal under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan against the Lahore High Court's order dated 22.01.2020, which declined his petition for post-arrest bail in FIR No.106/2018.The FIR alleged theft of dry batteries from a Ufone Tower and the murder of the petitioner's co-accused, Attaullah, during the incident.---Issues:Whether the petitioner is entitled to post-arrest bail based on the circumstances of the case.The relevance of the petitioner's involvement in other criminal cases to the grant of bail.---Holding/Reasoning:The court considered the circumstances of the case, where the petitioner and his co-accused were alleged to have committed theft and were confronted by security staff, leading to the death of the co-accused.The petitioner's counsel argued that the allegations were of a generalized nature and that the petitioner's involvement in other criminal cases should not disentitle him from bail, especially since he had not been convicted in any of those cases.The court agreed that mere involvement in criminal cases is not sufficient grounds to withhold bail, citing precedent cases.Given the two versions of events presented?one in the crime report and another in the statement of the deceased and the widow's application to the District Police Officer?the court found it appropriate to grant further inquiry, falling under section 497(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.).Considering the petitioner's right to liberty, the court granted leave, converting the Criminal Petition into an appeal, and allowed the petitioner to be released on bail upon furnishing bail bonds of Rs.5,00,000/- with one surety to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Judge.

Summary: Cr. Misc. No. 47/2020 and Cr. Misc. No. 48/2020, the petitioner Faizan Rehmat sought to challenge the orders passed by the Additional Sessions Judge Diamer and the Judicial Magistrate Chilas. The petitioner was charged under Sections 489-F, 420, and 34 PPC (FIR No. 91/2018) and Sections 489-F, 420, and 506(ii) PPC (FIR No. 11/2019) for alleged fraudulent activities. The Judicial Magistrate granted bail with the condition that the petitioner furnish a bank guarantee of Rs. 10 million, which was upheld by the Additional Sessions Judge.---Issues:Whether the condition of furnishing a bank guarantee of Rs. 10 million for bail is lawful and justified.Whether the petitioner should be allowed to furnish local sureties or personal surety bonds instead of a bank guarantee.---Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The court dismissed the petitions, maintaining the conditions set by the lower courts. The key points of the judgment are:Petitioner's Agreement to Conditions: The petitioner?s counsel had initially agreed to furnish the bank guarantee during the bail proceedings, as recorded in the bail order dated 02-05-2019. The petitioner could not later resile from this agreement.Non-Local Status: The condition of a bank guarantee was deemed appropriate given the petitioner's non-local status, which was a factor in ensuring his compliance with bail conditions.Estoppel by Conduct: The petitioner was estopped from challenging the condition due to his initial agreement, making the impugned orders by the Judicial Magistrate and Additional Sessions Judge valid and enforceable.The court concluded that there was no merit in the petitions, thus upholding the orders requiring the bank guarantee for bail.----Citations/Precedents:Sections 489-F, 420, and 34 PPC (FIR No. 91/2018)Sections 489-F, 420, and 506(ii) PPC (FIR No. 11/2019)Section 561-A Cr.P.C.

Summary: Summary pending