Summary: Background:Zaid Shah alias Jogi, along with co-accused, was convicted in six cases of abduction for ransom in 2007.Initially sentenced to death, the penalty was later commuted to life imprisonment with concurrent commutation of coordinate charges.After failed jail petitions and review petitions, the petitioner filed a second review petition, seeking concurrent commutation of sentences for the first time in 2019.---Issues:Whether a second review petition is maintainable.Whether the petitioner's plea for concurrent commutation of sentences should be entertained.---Decision:The court held that a second review petition is not maintainable based on precedent and legal principles.The petitioner's plea for concurrent commutation of sentences, raised for the first time in the second review petition, was rejected as it was not pleaded before the court earlier.Considering the gravity of the crimes committed by the petitioner, involving abduction for ransom in multiple cases, the court found no grounds to entertain the plea for concurrent commutation.The review petitions were dismissed.

Summary: Background: The appellant was accused of participating in the murder of her husband with the assistance of a paramour by administering intoxicant drugs and strangulating him. A case under Sections 302 and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC) was registered against her on January 9, 2018, at the Police Station Bhimber. After investigation, the police submitted a challan before the District Court of Criminal Jurisdiction, Bhimber. The appellant sought bail, citing statutory grounds, but the trial court rejected her bail application. She subsequently filed a revision petition before the High Court, which was also dismissed. This led to the present appeal before the Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir, Shariat Appellate Jurisdiction. -----Issues: 1- Whether the appellant was entitled to bail on statutory grounds, given the delays in trial and her two-year detention. -----2- Whether the courts below erred in denying bail by concluding that the appellant was a hardened, dangerous criminal. -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The court dismissed the appeal without ruling on the merits of the case to avoid prejudicing the ongoing trial. It acknowledged that bail could be denied based on the severity of the allegations, including the appellant’s alleged role in the premeditated murder of her husband. The court determined that prima facie evidence existed against the appellant, falling within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Cr.P.C., making her ineligible for bail at this stage. However, to address the issue of delayed justice, the court directed the trial court to expedite the proceedings and complete the trial within four months. If the trial is not concluded within the stipulated period, the appellant may apply for bail again. -----Citations/Precedents: Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code (PPC) Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code (PPC) Section 161, Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C) Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C)

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Arbitration Law (Section 20 of Arbitration Act, 1940)---The case revolves around the plaintiff's request for a reference to arbitration based on an arbitration clause in contracts executed between the parties. The plaintiff alleges that the defendant owes contractual dues that have not been paid despite the defendant's admission of liability. The plaintiff's lawyer argues that the contracts contained arbitration clauses and that the plaintiff had raised invoices for the dues, which remained unpaid. The plaintiff had also allegedly performed its obligations under the contracts and sought negotiation before resorting to legal action. The defendant claims that Sui Southern Gas Company Limited (SSGCL) is a proper party to the proceedings and that the dues were contingent upon payment from SSGCL. The judge dismisses the defendant's application to implead SSGCL in the case, as SSGCL is not party to the contracts and has no obligation to join arbitration proceedings. The judge concludes that the arbitration clauses are clear and enforceable. The judge rejects the defendant's argument regarding the dispute resolution mechanism in the contracts, stating that it does not apply to the present dispute over unpaid dues. In light of the facts presented and the existence of an arbitration agreement, the judge allows the plaintiff's suit and refers the matter to arbitration. An arbitrator is appointed to determine the dispute between the parties in accordance with the law. Overall, the judgment orders that the case be referred to arbitration based on the existence of enforceable arbitration clauses in the contracts.

Summary: Bail allowed -- In this case, the petitioner seeks post-arrest bail in relation to FIR, registered under section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, at P.S. Multan Cantt. The petitioner was apprehended on suspicion, and 1400 grams of Chars were allegedly recovered from her possession. The main argument presented by the petitioner's counsel is centered around the presence of an infant aged about 2.5 months who is being detained in jail along with the petitioner (mother). Citing legal precedents emphasizing the welfare of minors, the counsel argued that it is against the child's welfare to be held in jail for the alleged offenses of the mother. The court, considering these arguments and the completion of the investigation, grants post-arrest bail to the petitioner. The petitioner is admitted to bail upon furnishing a bail bond of Rs.2,00,000/- with one surety in the same amount.