Summary: Held: (1) Direct charge, daylight occurrence, parties known to each other, recovery of empties from the spot and injuries sustained by the deceased supported the prosecution version.(2) Noticeable abscondence---Fugitive from law loses some of the normal rights granted by the procedural and substantive law.(3) Trial commenced----Accused should not be released on bail when its trial is in progress.(4) Deeper appreciation of evidence is unwarranted at bail stage.(Bail was dismissed in the circumstances).

Summary: Background:Muhammad Islam, the petitioner, seeks admission to bail as he faces arrest in connection with a National Accountability Bureau (NAB) reference. He, along with others, is accused of enticing members of the public to invest in his travel agency, "Bin Islam Travels & Tours," promising lucrative profits. However, the venture turned out to be a scam, and investors suffered losses when the promised returns failed to materialize, and issued bank cheques bounced.---Issues:Whether the petitioner is eligible for anticipatory bail in light of the accusations against him.Whether the allegations fall within the jurisdiction of the NAB.---Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The petitioner's counsel argues that the accusations are trumped up and manipulated by the petitioner's adversary, a Police Inspector. It is contended that the NAB's jurisdiction does not apply as the affected individuals do not constitute the "public at large," suggesting that the matter should be handled in regular criminal/civil jurisdiction. The petitioner's role is portrayed as merely drawing commissions from airlines, not betraying investors.The court acknowledges established principles governing anticipatory bail in cognizable/non-bailable offenses. Denials or alternative narratives cannot dismiss prima facie evidence, and witness statements cannot be disregarded to accommodate the petitioner's plea. The investigative process, involving statements from 61 individuals, indicates potential culpability, making bail narrowly available. The petition is dismissed, and leave is refused.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Legal Issues:Whether the CMA seeking live broadcast of court proceedings is maintainable under review jurisdiction.Whether there exists a constitutional or statutory right for public broadcast/live streaming of court proceedings.Decision:The Court dismissed the CMA as not maintainable under review jurisdiction and lacking legal basis for public broadcast/live streaming of court proceedings.----Reasoning:The Court considered the objections raised by the respondents regarding the maintainability of the CMA and found merit in their argument that it was not filed under the proper jurisdiction.Despite acknowledging the importance of transparency in judicial proceedings, the Court concluded that the relief sought in the CMA was novel and lacked legal basis within the review jurisdiction.The Court emphasized the need for adherence to procedural law to prevent chaos in the judicial system.While acknowledging the evolving practice of courts worldwide regarding public broadcast/live streaming of proceedings, the Court referred the matter to the Chief Justice for further deliberation and appropriate action by the Full Court.---Conclusion:The Court dismissed the CMA on grounds of maintainability and lack of legal basis, while referring the matter of public broadcast/live streaming of court proceedings to the Chief Justice for further consideration by the Full Court.

Summary: Background:The case was brought before the Supreme Court of Pakistan in its original jurisdiction. The Court convened to address issues related to the government's response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Representatives from various governmental bodies and officials from different provinces and territories of Pakistan were present during the proceedings.---Issues:Whether the executive orders restricting inter-provincial movement issued by the Government of Punjab and the sealing of certain areas by the Government of Sindh were constitutional.Whether the governments were adequately prepared to handle affected areas and ensure the provision of basic necessities to residents.Whether healthcare workers and sanitary staff were being provided with necessary protections and support.The status of the registration of doctors amidst the pandemic.---Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The Supreme Court held that the executive orders restricting inter-provincial movement issued by the Government of Punjab were unconstitutional as they infringed upon Article 15 of the Constitution, which requires such restrictions to be enacted through legislation.The Court directed the Government of Sindh to provide justifications for the sealing of certain areas and ensure adequate measures for medical testing, screening, and provision of basic necessities to residents.The Court emphasized the need for governments to prioritize the safety and well-being of healthcare workers and sanitary staff, directing them to provide necessary protections and support.Regarding the registration of doctors, the Court noted that the issue was pending in courts and would be addressed soon in accordance with the law.The Court scheduled further hearings for April 20, 2020, and directed all governments to submit comprehensive reports on their COVID-19 response.---Citations/Precedents:Article 15 of the Constitution of Pakistan

Summary: Bail granted---Background:The petitioner, Babar Hussain, sought leave to appeal under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan against the Lahore High Court's order dated 22.01.2020, which declined his petition for post-arrest bail in FIR No.106/2018.The FIR alleged theft of dry batteries from a Ufone Tower and the murder of the petitioner's co-accused, Attaullah, during the incident.---Issues:Whether the petitioner is entitled to post-arrest bail based on the circumstances of the case.The relevance of the petitioner's involvement in other criminal cases to the grant of bail.---Holding/Reasoning:The court considered the circumstances of the case, where the petitioner and his co-accused were alleged to have committed theft and were confronted by security staff, leading to the death of the co-accused.The petitioner's counsel argued that the allegations were of a generalized nature and that the petitioner's involvement in other criminal cases should not disentitle him from bail, especially since he had not been convicted in any of those cases.The court agreed that mere involvement in criminal cases is not sufficient grounds to withhold bail, citing precedent cases.Given the two versions of events presented?one in the crime report and another in the statement of the deceased and the widow's application to the District Police Officer?the court found it appropriate to grant further inquiry, falling under section 497(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.).Considering the petitioner's right to liberty, the court granted leave, converting the Criminal Petition into an appeal, and allowed the petitioner to be released on bail upon furnishing bail bonds of Rs.5,00,000/- with one surety to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Judge.