Summary: presence of accused before the Court for pre-arrest bail is mandatory

Summary: Bail Before Arrest--Bail Allowed--The petitioner sought pre-arrest bail in connection with a case registered under Sections 420/468/471 of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC) at Police Station Madina Town, District Faisalabad. The petitioner contended that granting pre-arrest bail would contribute to the safe administration of criminal justice.The prosecution's case revolves around the petitioner and the complainant sharing a joint bank account. The allegation against the petitioner is that he forged the complainant's signature on a cheque and handed it to a co-accused. However, the cheque was declined due to insufficient funds, resulting in charges of cheating and fraud.The petitioner's counsel argued that the petitioner had been wrongly implicated due to the complainant's ulterior motives and collusion with the local police. The petitioner denied providing the disputed cheque to the co-accused and stated that he was not a beneficiary. The petitioner asserted that the complainant issued the cheque to the co-accused himself, as the cheque book was in his possession. The petitioner also mentioned the absence of forensic tests to verify the authenticity of the disputed signatures. Additionally, the counsel pointed out that the co-accused had already been granted post-arrest bail, and therefore, the petitioner deserved similar relief for the sake of consistency.Conversely, the prosecution argued that the petitioner was specifically implicated in the crime report for committing fraud and cheating. They contended that pre-arrest bail was intended for innocent individuals, and since the circumstances in this case did not align with such innocence, the petitioner shouldn't be granted this concession.After hearing both sides and reviewing the evidence, the judges noted that the petitioner and the complainant had a joint bank account. The allegation was that the petitioner forged the complainant's signature on a cheque given to a co-accused. However, the petitioner claimed that the cheque book was in the complainant's possession, and no forensic test had been conducted on the disputed signatures. The judges acknowledged that the co-accused had already been granted post-arrest bail, and based on a precedent, they stated that this case fell within the scope of further inquiry into the petitioner's guilt.Consequently, the court converted the petition into an appeal, allowing it, overturning the High Court's order of October 22, 2021, and confirming the interim pre-arrest bail granted by the Supreme Court's order dated December 3, 2021.

Summary: Summary Pending --- blasphemy case.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: CDA case, Public Interest Case, seeks direction for protection, presentation of the Margalla Hills National Park

Summary: Entire pre-trial proceedings including fair and impartial investigation are vital fragments of right to fair trial as guaranteed under Article 10-A of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. The right to fair trial under Article 10-A encompasses the entire criminal proceedings from the time when the crime is reported to the investigating agency and the investigation is started till conclusion of trial.

Summary: Pending

Summary: Pending

Summary: Agreement to sell with regards to property of minor by mother without permission of court is void and cannot be enforced.

Summary: The matter involved a disagreement regarding the distribution of the assets of a deceased individual, the appellants, argued for a portion of the estate based on their status as consanguine siblings and asserted that the deceased followed a particular religious sect. The other side, termed the respondents, contested this claim by maintaining that the deceased adhered to a different religious sect.The origins of the case stemmed from an allocation of inheritance in favor of the respondents. However, the appellants challenged this allocation, leading to a legal process. The initial court's ruling favored the respondents, but the higher court overturned this decision, establishing that the deceased adhered to a specific religious sect. Following this, the respondents appealed to a further court, which dismissed the appellants' case on the basis of time limitation.The Supreme Court examined the principles of the burden of proof and presumptions concerning the religious affiliation of a deceased individual. It emphasized the role of evidence in civil cases and cited established norms that presumed a specific religious affiliation unless counter evidence was provided.Through a thorough evaluation of testimonies and documents, the Supreme Court upheld the findings of the higher court, determining that the weight of evidence supported the appellants' assertion regarding the deceased's religious affiliation. The court also addressed the aspect of time limitation and concluded that the appellants' legal claim was indeed within the stipulated time frame.In light of this analysis, the Supreme Court allowed the appellants' appeal, nullified the decision of the higher court, and reinstated the ruling of the said court, thereby granting the appellants a share of the estate.