Summary: Background:Tasar Mehmood and Shahbaz Ahmed, along with two others, allegedly trespassed into a private hospital managed by Dr. Yousaf Ali on 26.11.2013 at 9:45 p.m., with the intention to commit robbery. During the attempted robbery, they opened fire when resisted by the attendants, resulting in the death of Umair Shahzad. The incident was reported to the police, leading to the arrest of Tasar Mehmood on 6.2.2014 and Shahbaz Ahmed on 5.3.2014. Both were identified in a test identification parade and their subsequent disclosures led to the recovery of firearms. They were convicted by the trial court, which was partly upheld and partly modified by the Islamabad High Court, reducing their sentences to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment. Dissatisfied with the judgment, Tasar Mehmood and Shahbaz Ahmed filed separate petitions before the Supreme Court of Pakistan.---Issues:The main issues before the court include the validity of the identification process, the sufficiency of evidence, and the application of legal principles regarding fair trial and burden of proof.---Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The court, after hearing arguments and examining the record, upheld the judgment of the Islamabad High Court and dismissed the petitions. The court noted the prompt response of the police to the incident and the integrity of the initial investigation. The petitioners were identified in a test identification parade supervised by a magistrate, and their subsequent disclosures led to the recovery of firearms. While the identification process may not have been ideal, it was deemed sufficient under the circumstances. The court emphasized that the purpose of the identification process is to enable witnesses to establish the identity of assailants, considering the challenges of urban environments. The absence of detailed descriptions of the assailants' features was not deemed crucial, as the prosecution's case was supported by other evidence, including the testimony of witnesses and the recovery of firearms. The court underscored the importance of a balanced approach to criminal justice, ensuring a fair trial for the accused while providing the prosecution with the opportunity to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. In this case, the evidence, including the testimony of witnesses and the recovery of firearms, was deemed sufficient to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, the petitions were dismissed, and leave was declined.---Citations/Precedents:Article 129(e) of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984.High Court Rules and Orders, Volume III, Part-C.Rule 26.32 of the Police Rules, 1934.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Criminal Appeal, against death sentence

Summary: Criminal appeal, against conviction of life imprisonment, having offense u/s 302/109/34 PPC

Summary: 1. No doubt Substitution in case of single accused is a rare phenomenon, but it never relaxes the court to take it for granted and awarded convictions that too on capital charge. It is bounden duty of the courts of law to assess and reassess the material on file so to avoid injustice having been committed.2. It is astonishing that why the deceased was chosen as the target, when the complainant being the prime target was present on the spot. The complainant admitted in his court statement that the deceased had no ill will with the accused, rather it was the complainant who was at the daggers drawn.3. Mere promptness of report is not a guarantee to success and it alone cannot certify the wittness as truthful, rather the court is to see the accumulative effect of what the prosecution has collected.4. True that abscondence of accused is relevant factor, but alone it cannot be considered as conclusive proof of a crime as the prosecution has to independently prove the charge on the basis of strong and cogent evidence.

Summary: Payment of 6% Interest.

Summary: Bail granted --- (Post-Arrest bail Granted u/s 353/324/302/34 PPC. ) Factual Background:The case arose from an incident reported on February 12, 2019, where police officers, while on patrol, were attacked by a group of individuals in Karachi, leading to the death of PC Muhammad Farooq. Sheeraz, among others, was implicated in this incident.Legal Arguments:For Petitioner: Advocated for Sheeraz's innocence, highlighting the lack of specific evidence or recovery of crime weapon, the general nature of accusations, and absence of any independent witnesses. Relied upon the judgments in Nadeem Burney v. The State (1999 MLD 1259), Fazil Khaliq alias Hafiz v. The State through Advocate-General, N.W.F.P. Peshawar and another (1996 SCMR 364), and Muhammad Shakeel v. The State and others (PLD 2014 S.C 458) to support the bail application.Against Petitioner: Asserted Sheeraz's direct involvement in the attack based on the FIR, recovery of a weapon at his arrest, and his previous criminal involvements to argue against the bail.Judicial Analysis:The Court noted the generalized nature of the accusations and the absence of specific evidence tying Sheeraz to the crime. It emphasized the legal principle that mere naming in an FIR does not constitute sufficient grounds for guilt and stressed the importance of independent identification for named individuals in FIRs.Holdings:The Court allowed Sheeraz's bail application, requiring a solvent surety and personal recognizance bond each set at Rs.2,00,000/-, citing the principle of consistency as applied in similar cases where co-accused were granted bail, notably Moundar and others v. The State (PLD 1990 S.C. 934) and Muhammad Rafique v. The State (1997 SCMR 412).

Summary: Background:The Supreme Court of Pakistan, in its original jurisdiction, convened to address the government's response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Various government officials, including Attorney Generals, Secretaries, and representatives from different provinces and territories, were present. Opinions from religious scholars and the Council of Islamic Ideology were considered.---Issues:Adequacy of government measures in combating the pandemic.Utilization of Zakat and Bait-ul-Mal funds.Legality of provincial taxation activities conflicting with federal laws.Treatment of medical staff and police actions against doctors.Transparency and efficacy of business reopening policies.---Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The Court expressed concern over the closure of Haji Camp Quarantine Center due to inadequate facilities and instructed the NDMA to provide an explanation.The Court emphasized the need for a comprehensive national policy for COVID-19 instead of ad hoc decisions, expecting consensus among government stakeholders.Irregularities in the utilization of Zakat and Bait-ul-Mal funds were noted, and the Auditor General's report was requested for further action.The Court questioned the legality of provincial taxation activities conflicting with federal laws and directed the Attorney General and Advocate Generals to argue on this point.The Court instructed the Secretary (Health) of KP to investigate reported maltreatment of doctors by police officials and to take appropriate action.Concerns were raised about the transparency and efficacy of business reopening policies, and the Court urged for a more systematic approach.The Court directed government stakeholders to formulate and enforce a uniform national policy for COVID-19 within a week, with a report on policy implementation expected before the next hearing.---Citations/Precedents:Noor Ahmed v. State (PLD 1964 Supreme Court 120)Federal Legislative List (Constitution of Pakistan)Sindh Epidemic Diseases Act, 2014Fundamental Rights (Constitution of Pakistan)Muhammad Murad Abro v. The State (2004 SCMR 966)Ansar Mehmood v. Abdul Khaliq (2011 SCMR 713)Muhammad Amjad v. The State (PLD 2003 Supreme Court 704)

Summary: Background:Asmat Ali, the petitioner, was intercepted while driving a truck by the police from Police Station Cantt. Kohat. Upon search, 9600 grams of contraband identified as cannabis were found in the tool box of the vehicle. Following a trial, Asmat Ali was convicted under section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, and sentenced to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of Rs. 100,000/-. The High Court upheld this decision, which is now being challenged by Asmat Ali before the Supreme Court.---Issues:The key issues before the court include the legality of the search and seizure, the sufficiency of evidence, and the correctness of the judgments rendered by the lower courts.----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:After considering the arguments and examining the evidence, the court declined to interfere with the judgments of the lower courts. The statements of the recovery witnesses, including Muhammad Ali, SHO (PW-1), and Anwar Ali, Head Constable/Incharge Check Post (PW-2), were found consistent and credible. The substantial quantity of contraband discovered rules out any suspicion of a manipulated recovery. Asmat Ali's attempt to disprove the charge by admitting most parts of the transaction, except for the possession of contraband, was deemed insufficient. The defense witness presented by Asmat Ali failed to contradict his interception at the check post. Moreover, the alleged insufficiency of "protocol" mentioned in the forensic report was considered irrelevant, as the report conclusively established the narcotic character of the substance with sufficient details regarding the conducted tests. Since the conclusions reached by the lower courts were in accordance with the principles of fair administration of criminal justice, the petition was dismissed, and leave was declined.---Citations/Precedents:Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997.