Summary: Pending

Summary: Pending

Summary: Pending

Summary: Bail granted----In this legal petition under Section 497 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.PC), the petitioner, seeks post-arrest bail in connection with FIR. The charges involve offenses 324 PPC, 334 PPC, 336 PPC, 377-A, including causing injuries with a hockey stick to the complainant's brother.The petitioner had previously sought bail, which was dismissed. Subsequently, he claimed juvenile status, and the trial court, after examining birth records, declared him a juvenile offender under the Juvenile Justice System Act, 2018. The judgment emphasized Pakistan's commitment to the Convention on the Rights of the Child and the obligation to safeguard children's rights. It discussed the retrospective application of the Juvenile Justice System Act, 2018, and the establishment of Juvenile Courts. The court noted that the delay in the trial is not attributable to the petitioner and cites international and domestic legal obligations to protect the rights of juveniles. It referred to the repealed Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000, and the current Juvenile Justice System Act, 2018, which reduced the statutory delay for bail eligibility to six months. The court acknowledged the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on trial proceedings and the intention to record the complainant's statement through video link due to the complainant's residence abroad. The judgment underscored the petitioner's right to liberty and a speedy trial, granting post-arrest bail, subject to conditions.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Petition against allotment of plot in H -9 for construction of Mandir (Temple) (a) Constitutional Law – Rights of Minorities – Allocation of Land for Religious Purposes: ----Constitution of Pakistan, Arts. 20, 25 – Capital Development Authority (CDA) Ordinance, 1960 – Allocation of Plot for Temple, Community Center, and Cremation Site in Islamabad The petitioners challenged the allotment of Plot No.2, Sector H-9/2, Islamabad, for the construction of a Hindu temple, community center, and cremation site. They argued that the plot allocation violated the Master Plan of Islamabad, lacked necessity given the small Hindu population in the area, and constituted a waste of public funds. The court held that the Master Plan provides a broad outline, while specific plot designations are determined by CDA through sector layout plans. Sector H-9/2 includes designated plots for minority graveyards, justifying the allocation. Additionally, the CDA halted construction due to the allottee’s failure to submit a building plan for approval, which must precede any construction activity under CDA rules. Disposition: The petition was disposed of with directions that CDA must ensure compliance with its rules and regulations before approving any construction. The petitioners were granted liberty to approach the court again if grievances persist in the future. (b) Constitutional Law – State Funding for Religious Structures – Role of the Council of Islamic Ideology (CII): ----Constitution of Pakistan, Arts. 2-A, 20 – Federal Funding for Construction of Temple in Islamabad Petitioners argued that Federal Government funding of PKR 100 million for constructing a temple violated constitutional principles and amounted to misallocation of public funds, especially during the COVID-19 pandemic. The court noted that the Federal Government had not disbursed any funds and had referred the matter to the Council of Islamic Ideology (CII) for its opinion. Therefore, the grievance concerning funding was deemed premature and without basis at this stage. -----Disposition: The petitioners' concerns regarding funding were declared infructuous as no funds had been released, and the matter remained pending before the CII.

Summary: Service Matter, Seeking direction for annual increase in pay and pension benefits.

Summary: The case involved a husband (Petitioner) seeking a medical examination of his wife (Respondent No. 2) to determine her gender identity and, consequently, the validity of their marriage. The court discussed the right to privacy, the non-absoluteness of privacy rights, and the necessity for balancing conflicting interests. It emphasizes that the court should not become a tool for unscrupulous purposes and should order medical examinations only in exceptional circumstances when no alternative is available. The court also recognized Act XIII of 2018, a Pakistani law recognizing transgender rights. It referred to principles like informed consent and the relevance of medical examinations in family court matters. The court concluded that while Family Courts can direct parties to undergo medical examinations, such power is subject to specific conditions. Regarding the petitioner's request, the court finds the application premature and sets aside the lower court's order, suggesting the petitioner's evidence and circumstances should justify such an examination. The court instructed the Family Court to frame an additional issue about the validity of the marriage based on the wife's gender characteristics and decides on the medical examination after further evidence is presented. It also introduced a security deposit mechanism to protect the wife from potential harassment and states that she cannot be forced into the examination. The court emphasized the need for careful consideration of privacy rights, legal principles, and the specific circumstances surrounding the request for a medical examination in family court cases.

Summary: Bail granted---Background:The petitioners sought leave to appeal against the Lahore High Court's (Multan Bench) order dated 30.10.2019, which recalled the ad-interim bail granted to them on 14.10.2019. The case involved offenses including trespassing, firing, and assault, allegedly committed by 18 identified and 12 unidentified accused.---Issues:Whether the delay in lodging the FIR and the credibility of the prosecution's narrative justify the grant of pre-arrest bail.Whether challenges to the medico-legal report on firearm injuries affect the validity of the prosecution's case.Whether the recovery of empties and the common intention of the accused justify denial of bail.---Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The court emphasized that pre-arrest bail is an extraordinary remedy granted sparingly in cases of trumped-up charges or malafide prosecution.Referring to legal precedents, the court discussed the evolution of the concept of pre-arrest bail, emphasizing its importance in protecting individual liberty.Considering the arguments and case law, the court concluded that the petitioners had made a case for the grant of pre-arrest bail and converted the petition into an appeal, allowing it accordingly.---Citations/Precedents:Shabbir Ahmad v. The State (PLD 1981 Lahore 599)Meeran Bux vs. The State and another (PLD 1989 Supreme Court 347)Syed Muhammad Firdaus and others v. The State (2005 SCMR 784)