Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Held: (1) The complainant is yet to establish that whether from a distance of 220 paces, the voice if raised could be heard and as to whether the accused could reasonably be seen and identified from such a long distance that too inside the covered bulwark (Morcha).(2) The Investigating Officer did not recover crime empties from the spot where the accused were shown present at the time of firing.(3) True, that while hearing bail application, the Courts are to exercise restraint and to avoid deeper appreciation of evidence but equally true that bail applications cannot be heard and decided in vacuum.(Bail was allowed in the circumstances).

Summary: Bail granted---Mst. Shazia Parveen Saleem seeks bail after being arrested in connection with FIR under Sections 420, 468, 471 PPC registered with Police Station Gunjmandi, Rawalpindi. The prosecution alleged that she forged a guardianship certificate and entered into an agreement to sell a house. The petitioner claimed innocence, attributing the situation to being misled about the authenticity of the certificate. The court noted discrepancies in the investigation and emphasized the duty of investigators to uncover the truth. Considering the nature of the offenses and the Supreme Court's principles, the court granted bail to the petitioner, emphasizing that bail is generally a rule for offenses with imprisonment of less than 10 years. The court criticized the lower courts for not adequately considering the legal provisions and granted post-arrest bail to Mst. Shazia Parveen Saleem, subject to bail bonds.

Summary: Bail denied---Background:The petitioner, Sheqab Muhammad, is accused of murderously assaulting persons within the precincts of Police Station Himmat Khan Shaheen Kalangi, District Malakand, on 10.4.2020, during a dispute over immovable property.The petitioner allegedly fired a shot, confirmed by a medico legal certificate.---Issues:Whether the petitioner should be granted bail considering the evidence against him.Whether the petitioner's participation in the offense warrants further investigation.---Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The court found that the petitioner's participation in the offense, as supported by the victims' statements and medical examinations, prima facie falls within the offense under section 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 (PPC).The court emphasized that at the bail stage, a detailed analysis of the prosecution's case is prohibited by law.The nature of the injuries sustained by the victims, even if on non-vital parts of the body, indicates a murderous assault, as defined by the law.The court ruled that the discretion exercised by the High Court in denying bail to the petitioner was within the bounds of the law and did not warrant interference.The petition was dismissed, and leave was declined.

Summary: Background:In Civil Appeals No. 17 to 29 of 2020 before the Supreme Court of Pakistan (Appellate Jurisdiction), the appellants challenged a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad, dated 18.07.2019. The judgment allowed service appeals filed by the respondents, directing Pakistan Railways to extend the benefits of the Regularization Policy 2012 to the respondents who were initially employed as Temporary Labour Appointment (TLA) workers.---Issues:Whether the respondents, who were initially employed as TLAs, were entitled to regularization under the Regularization Policy 2012.Whether the employment of the respondents constituted project posts, thereby disqualifying them from regularization.Whether the nature of the respondents' employment as gatekeepers at level crossings constituted permanent or temporary positions.---Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The Court considered the continuous employment of the respondents since 2010 and their inclusion in salary registers maintained by Pakistan Railways, demonstrating their uninterrupted service.The appellants argued that the respondents were employed against project posts, citing an agreement for the maintenance of level crossings. However, the Court reasoned that level crossings are permanent infrastructure, and the employment of gatekeepers cannot be considered temporary in nature.The Court rejected the appellants' argument that the respondents' positions were temporary, as level crossings and the need for gatekeepers are ongoing necessities for railway operations.---Citations/Precedents:Divisional Superintendent Pakistan Railways vs. Syed Usman Ali - Civil Appeals Nos. 864 to 872 of 2017 and CPs. 324 to 334 of 2019

Summary: Bail granted---Background:Saeed Zaman, one of the accused in a financial scam case, sought bail after his arrest. Although his initial bail plea was rejected by the Sessions Court and later withdrawn by the Islamabad High Court, he once again applied for bail, which was granted with the condition to deposit a substantial amount of money. Zaman appealed against the condition of depositing the money, arguing that it exceeded his financial capacity.---Issues:Whether imposing a condition for the deposit of a large sum of money as a condition for bail is justified.Whether such a condition violates the principles of equality before the law and equal protection thereof.Whether the court has the authority to require the deposit of money as a condition for bail.---Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The court examined the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure regarding the grant of bail and concluded that while the court can require an accused to execute a bond for future attendance, it cannot require the deposit of cash except for an undertaking for good behavior. Such conditions for bail should be set with due regard to the circumstances of the case and should not be excessive.The court found that imposing the condition of depositing a substantial amount of money exceeded the permissible bounds of bail conditions. Such conditions should not burden the accused beyond their financial capacity and should not create inequalities among accused individuals. Therefore, the court set aside the condition imposed by the Islamabad High Court and remanded the case back to the High Court for reconsideration of the bail plea without the condition of depositing money.

Summary: Acquittal granted---Background:Muhammad Javed, the petitioner, was convicted for the murder of Muhammad Elahi following an altercation over an unpaid debt. The incident occurred within the precincts of Police Station Attock Saddar, with the deceased succumbing to his injuries after being assaulted by the petitioner and his associates. The trial court convicted Muhammad Javed under clause (b) of Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, sentencing him to life imprisonment.---Issues:Whether the prosecution's evidence sufficiently proved Muhammad Javed's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.Whether there were inconsistencies and suppression of evidence in the prosecution's case.Whether the discrepancies in the evidence warranted the petitioner's acquittal.---Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The court examined the evidence presented during the trial, focusing on witness testimonies, medical reports, and the circumstances of the incident. Discrepancies emerged in the prosecution's case, particularly regarding the injuries sustained by the petitioner and his family members, which contradicted the narrative presented in the crime report.The court found it suspicious that the deceased did not provide a statement to the police despite being conscious and stable. Additionally, the injuries sustained by the petitioner and his family members were inconsistent with the prosecution's version of events. The investigating officer's admission further raised doubts about the accuracy of the prosecution's case.Witness testimonies also conflicted with each other, with some witnesses providing accounts that contradicted the prosecution's narrative. The court highlighted the discrepancies in witness statements and concluded that the prosecution's case was fraught with doubts.Considering the uncertainty surrounding the incident and the failure of the prosecution to prove the petitioner's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, the court converted the petition into an appeal and acquitted the petitioner of the charges. The petitioner was ordered to be released forthwith, unless detained in connection with another case.

Summary: Background: The appellants, members of the Police force of Azad Jammu and Kashmir, challenged the deduction of 50% Risk Allowance from their pay by the Accountant-General. They claimed the Risk Allowance was sanctioned by the government and subsequently frozen at its admissibility level as of 30.06.2017, as per the Office Memorandum dated 20.07.2017. The appellants filed a writ petition before the High Court, which was dismissed. On appeal, the case was remanded by the Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir to the High Court for reconsideration, which again dismissed the writ petition. This led to the current appeal. ----Issues: 1- Whether the deduction of 50% Risk Allowance by the Accountant-General was lawful. 2- Whether the interpretation of paragraph 6 and paragraph 9 of the Office Memorandum dated 20.07.2017 was correctly applied by the High Court. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: --Deduction of Risk Allowance: The Supreme Court held that the deduction of 50% Risk Allowance by the Accountant-General was unlawful. The Court found that paragraph 9 of the Office Memorandum specifically protected the Risk Allowance, freezing it at the level of its admissibility as on 30.06.2017, and did not support the reduction. --Interpretation of Memorandum: The Supreme Court clarified that paragraph 6 dealt with general allowances, while paragraph 9 dealt specifically with special allowances, including the Risk Allowance. The Court emphasized that the specific provision in paragraph 9 had an overriding effect over the general provision in paragraph 6. The appeal was accepted, the High Court's judgment was set aside, and the writ petition filed by the appellants was accepted. ----Citations/Precedents: Rafique Akhtar Chaudhary vs. Azad Jammu and Kashmir Government [PLD 1982 SC (AJ&K) 124] Azad Jammu and Kashmir Government & others vs. Muhammad Younas Tahir & others [1994 SCR 341] Ch. Javaid Mehdi, advocate vs. Chief Election Commissioner AJ&K, Muzaffarabad & 3 others [PLJ 2004 SC (AJ&K) 245] Qaiser Javed Malik vs. Pervaiz Ahmed & 2 others [2009 SCMR 846] Dr. Mobashir Hussain & others vs. Federation of Pakistan & others [PLD 2010 Supreme Court 265] Imran Ali vs. Public Service Commission, Azad Jammu and Kashmir, through its Secretary, Civil Secretariat, Chattar, Muzaffarabad & 4 others [2013 SCR 795] Mirza Abdul Aziz vs. Muhammad Ayub & 2 others [2013 SCR 827] Syed Subtain Hussain Kazmi, Tehsildar presently posted at Bagh Development Authority & 2 others vs. Syed Mumtaz Hussain Kazmi, Naib Tehsildar, presently posted at the office of Deputy Commissioner, Bagh, Haveli & 5 others [2013 SCR 889] Muhammad Yousaf Haroon vs. Competent Authority & 4 others [2014 SCR 1180] Haider Ali & another vs. Qurat-ul-Ain Latif & 9 others [2014 SCR 196] Mst. Nafeesa Manzoor vs. AJ&K University & 7 others [2016 SCR 304] Azad Government & 5 others vs. Inhabitants of Village Baghar [2016 SCR 696] Abdul Majeed & 2 others vs. AJ&K Government & 6 others [2017 SCR 397] Chairman AJ&K Council & 2 others vs. Muhammad Munir Raja & another [2017 SCR 1168] Azad Government & another vs. Dr. Khalid & 10 others [2019 SCR 493] Finance Department of Azad Jammu and Kashmir & 2 others vs. Asif Javaid & others (Civil Appeal No.153/2020, decided on 14.5.2020) Farid Khan vs. Gulzar Khan & 10 others [PLD 1985 SC (AJ&K) 74] Khalid Mehmood Butt & another vs. Managing Director, AKLASC & 4 others [2002 SCR 158] State vs. Hakam Deen & 115 others [2005 SCR 374] Muhammad Asif Khan & 173 others vs. Azad Government of the State of Jammu and Kashmir through its Chief Secretary, Muzaffarabad and 14 others [PLJ 2014 SC (AJ&K) 163] Al-Jehad Trust through Raeesul Mujahideen Habib-ul-Wahabb-ul-Khairi and others v. Federation of Pakistan & others [PLD 1997 SC 324]

Summary: Summary pending