Summary: [Bail Allowed] The petitioner, Saeed Yousaf, sought post-arrest bail in a case registered against him under Sections 302/324/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC) at Police Station Akora Khattak, District Nowshera. The bail relief was initially denied by both the Trial Court and the Peshawar High Court, Peshawar, and the petitioner appealed to the Supreme Court.According to the crime report, the deceased was taking children to school in his car when he spotted the accused, who were armed with firearms. He informed the complainant through a mobile phone about the situation. The complainant and his nephew arrived at the scene, where the accused, including the petitioner, started firing. As a result, the deceased lost his life, and the complainant and his nephew were injured. The motive behind the incident was described as a quarrel between the deceased and the accused.The petitioner, through his counsel, argued that he had been falsely implicated in the case and accused the complainant and local police of collusion in this regard. The petitioner pointed out that the medical officer examining the injured parties had doubts about the cause of their injuries, which undermined the credibility of the crime report. Additionally, the petitioner emphasized that no weapon of offense was recovered from him during the investigation, supporting his claim of innocence. The petitioner had been in custody, and the investigation was complete, so he sought bail on these grounds.The learned Additional Prosecutor General and the complainant in person supported the impugned order denying bail to the petitioner, contending that he had been specifically named in the FIR and did not deserve leniency.After considering the arguments and examining the record, the Supreme Court observed that the petitioner's role in the case involved causing injury to the injured parties, while the fatal shooting of the deceased was attributed to other co-accused. The medical examination report indicated suspicion about the injuries sustained by the injured parties, and no weapon was recovered from the petitioner. The Court noted that the mere absconsion of the petitioner after the incident was not conclusive proof of his guilt and that bail could be granted if the case merited it on its merits. The Court concluded that the petitioner made out a case for bail, converted the petition into an appeal, set aside the impugned order, and admitted the petitioner to bail upon furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction of the Trial Court. The bail amount was set at Rs. 500,000 with one surety in the same amount.

Summary: Background: The petitioner, a permanent employee of the Revenue Department serving as a Patwari, challenged the promotion of respondent No. 6 to the post of Girdawar on a current charge basis. The petitioner contended that he was senior to respondent No. 6, as reflected in the final seniority list of 2015, and thus, was entitled to the promotion. The Service Tribunal dismissed the appeal in limine, leading to this petition for leave to appeal. ----Issues: 1- Whether the promotion of respondent No. 6, junior to the petitioner, to the post of Girdawar on a current charge basis was lawful. 2- Whether the petitioner, being a matriculate, had the necessary qualification for the promotion. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Service Tribunal, stating that the petitioner did not meet the required qualification of Intermediate for promotion to the post of Girdawar as per the Azad Jammu & Kashmir Revenue Department, Patwari, Qanoongo, Naib Tehsildar, and Tehsildar Service Rules, 2014. The court concluded that the petitioner was not an aggrieved person under Section 4 of the Service Tribunal Act 1975, as he lacked the requisite qualifications for the promotion. Consequently, the petitioner had no locus standi to challenge the promotion. ----Citations/Precedents: Tariq Zia Abbasi vs. Speaker AJK Legislative Assembly and others (Civil PLA No. 109 of 2015 dated 10.02.2016) Section 4 of the Azad Jammu & Kashmir Service Tribunals Act, 1975

Summary: Background: The petitioner filed a suit for declaration and revocation of a sale deed dated 26.12.2014, alleging that the respondents transferred land in excess of their share through fraud in connivance with a Patwari. The trial court rejected the suit under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC), but the District Judge accepted the appeal and remanded the case for a fresh decision. The respondents then appealed to the High Court, which reinstated the trial court's decision. ----Issues: 1- Whether the High Court's judgment reinstating the trial court's decision to reject the suit under Order VII, Rule 11 of the CPC was valid. 2- Whether the petitioner's suit had sufficient cause of action and properly described the property in question. 3- Whether the petition for leave to appeal is time-barred. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, noting that there are significant questions of public importance that require thorough deliberation. The court acknowledged the respondents' preliminary objection regarding the timeliness of the petition but deferred the final decision on this point until the appeal hearing. The case was accepted for further review, and the petitioner was ordered to deposit security within one month. ----Citations/Precedents: Allah Ditta & others vs. Muhammad Sharif & others [2012 SCR 60] Ch. M. Sadiq vs. Mujahid Hussain Naqvi & others [2008 SCR 406] Development Authority Muzaffarabad vs. Iqbal Hussain Nizami [2002 SCR 121] Azad Govt. and another vs. Mujahid Hussain Naqvi [2002 SCR 302] Abdul Khaleel Ganaie and others vs. Sabir Hussain & others [2002 SCR 428] The court's decision to grant leave highlights the necessity to address and resolve the legal questions involved, particularly the procedural aspects under Order VII, Rule 11 CPC, and the substantive issues regarding the cause of action and property description.

Summary: Background: The petitioner, a practicing lawyer and member of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir High Court Bar Association, filed a writ petition challenging the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Custodian of Evacuee Property (Appointment, Terms and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2017. The petitioner contended that these rules were framed arbitrarily to accommodate certain individuals and were contrary to the Constitution and established principles for the appointment of judicial officers. ----Issues: 1- Whether the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Custodian of Evacuee Property (Appointment, Terms and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2017, specifically Rule 4, were valid and constitutional. 2- Whether the appointment and removal criteria for the Custodian should align with the qualifications and procedures applicable to judicial appointments, as per precedents set by higher courts. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir granted leave to appeal, finding that the method of appointment and removal of the Custodian was a matter of public importance requiring detailed deliberation. The court noted that the High Court's judgment, which set aside Rule 4 of the 2017 Rules and directed the government to introduce new criteria for the Custodian, needed further examination in light of precedents set by the Supreme Court of Pakistan and the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Supreme Court regarding the appointment of judicial officers. The court maintained the interim relief, preventing any appointments under the contested rules until the appeal's resolution. ----Citations/Precedents: Sheikh Riaz-ul-Haq and another vs. Federation of Pakistan and others [PLD 2013 SC 501] Syed Khalid Hussain Gillani vs. Azad Govt. & others [2016 SCR 228]

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Misc. Matter, Seeking direction for Development/Construction Work at E-12 and handing over possession of Alloted Plot to the Petitioner.

Summary: Land Acquisition: Affectees of F-14 / 15 are aggrieved of compensation formula, Seeks enforcement of formula approval approved by 2nd meeting of Executive Board of FGEHA.

Summary: Accused is to be released on bail when prosecution fails to produce its evidence despite several opportunities as case of the accused can not be kept pending for unlimited period of time.