Summary: Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997)-------S. 21-F---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 25---Remissions---Discrimination---Petitionerwas convicted and sentenced under Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, and benefit of remissions wasdenied to him---Validity---All citizens were entitled to be treated similarly, subject to law---"Equality" meant that among equal the law should be equal and equally administered and thatthe like should be treated alike---Principle of "equal treatment" was applicable to prisoners---Constitution did not permit unequal treatment among prisoners and there had to be one set ofRule for every convict under law, though the forum of punishment was different and morestringent under different law but after conviction the convicts should be governed under thePrison Rules---By mere change of forum one set of convict could not be entitled forremission---State did not make any classification of prisoners to deprive them fromFundamental Rights---Where certain group of persons were denied benefit of privilege orother group was allowed, such was discrimination between the person or things similarlysituated and consequently was void on account of provisions of Art. 25(1) of theConstitution---High Court directed the authorities to include all remissions to the sentence ofpetitioner which had been denied to him---Constitutional petition was allowed accordingly.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Sections of law; Section 497 Cr.P.C.(a) In a case where challan is put in Court and trial commences, superior Courts normally exercise some restraint in granting bail for the reason that findings in such a case may effect the outcome of trial, but it does not mean that bail should invariably be refused even if an accused is found entitled to concession of bail.

Summary: The prosecution's case was based on a FIR lodged which stated that Inspector/SHO Ghulam Mustafa Zardari, the complainant, had received information from a spy informer about narcotic smugglers, namely Abdul Basit and Abdullah, who were allegedly delivering a large quantity of narcotics to a customer at Dawood Chowrangi, Landhi, Karachi. Acting on this information, the police apprehended the accused individuals and recovered Methamphetamine Ice Crystal from their possession.During the bail application hearing the applicants' counsel argued that the applicants were innocent and falsely implicated in the case. They also raised concerns about the violation of Section 103 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.), the delay in filing the FIR, and the manner in which the recovered narcotics were allegedly wrapped.The Special Prosecutor for ANF opposed the bail application, emphasizing the seriousness of the charges and the positive results of the chemical analysis of the narcotics. The prosecutor argued that the accused were caught red-handed with significant quantities of Methamphetamine Ice Crystal.After considering the arguments and reviewing the case papers, the court found that the applicants were specifically named in the FIR, were arrested at the scene, and were found in possession of narcotics. The court also noted that no enmity or ill-will was alleged against the prosecution witnesses. Therefore, the court denied the bail application, citing the seriousness of the offense and the positive chemical analysis report as reasons for dismissal.The court referenced previous legal precedents to support its decision and emphasized that the discretion under Section 497 of the Cr.P.C. should not be exercised liberally in cases involving a substantial recovery of narcotics.In conclusion, the court dismissed the bail application and clarified that the observations made in the order were tentative in nature and should not influence the trial court's proceedings.

Summary: Bail granted---Background:Cr.Misc. No. 18/2020 was filed in the Hon'ble Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court by Zia-ud-Din, the petitioner, seeking the cancellation of bail granted to the respondents/accused in connection with an offense under Sections 302/34 PPC as per FIR No. 24/2019 registered at Police Station Yasin, District Ghizer.----Issues:Whether the bail granted to the respondents/accused by the learned Vacations Sessions Judge Gilgit should be cancelled?Whether the grounds for granting bail were sufficient and lawful?----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The petitioner, Zia-ud-Din, contended that the bail granted to the respondents/accused was contrary to the law and facts of the case. He argued that the respondents/accused were directly named in the FIR with specific roles, and there were eyewitnesses to the incident. The recovery of weapons of offense supported the prosecution's case, and the motive behind the crime was disclosed in the FIR. Therefore, the bail granted by the learned Vacations Sessions Judge Gilgit should be cancelled.The respondents/accused countered these arguments, claiming that their arrest by the police before the recovery of the deceased's body was illegal. They also challenged the timing of the proceedings under Section 157 Cr.P.C. and the delay in recording statements of eyewitnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C. They argued that there were doubts about their involvement in the crime.The court carefully considered the arguments of both parties and examined the record of the case. It noted that the respondents/accused were directly charged in the FIR with specific roles, and there were eyewitnesses to the incident. Weapons of offense were recovered based on information provided by the respondents/accused.The court found that the learned Vacations Sessions Judge Gilgit granted bail to the respondents/accused on the grounds that their arrest by the police was made before the recovery of the deceased's body, and there was prima facie evidence of unnatural death. However, the court deemed this reasoning to be flimsy and hasty, considering the prima facie evidence against the respondents/accused.Therefore, the court concluded that the bail granted by the learned Vacations Sessions Judge Gilgit was not justified. It accepted the petition for the cancellation of bail and recalled/cancelled the bail order dated 14-01-2020. The respondents/accused present in court were taken into custody and remanded to judicial lockup. The learned trial court was directed to issue a committal order for the accused/respondents.In summary, the petition for cancellation of bail was accepted, and the bail granted to the respondents/accused was cancelled, leading to their remand into custody.