Summary: Where to establish a claim, evidence is required to be recorded, prima facie case cannot be assumed in favour of petitioner especially when he is yet to establish his right to hold possession of suit property or be transferred its ownership, which already vests in respondents, who are owners of the property, instead of petitioner, who is stated to be a tenant of respondents and his claim is based on mere agreement to sell which has been denied by the other side. Agreement to sell does not create any title but gives only a right to petitioner to claim specific performance of contract, if he can prove the said agreement as valid by refuting the claim of respondents that it was a forged and fabricated document. Besides, balance of convenience tilts in favour of respondents, owners of the property and not the petitioner, holder of disputed agreement to sell, as by grant of interim relief the respondents are likely to suffer more than what the petitioner would suffer if interim relief is refused.

Summary: Single bid sale is contrary to the concept of public auction ? context being section 15 of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001. 651Crl. Appeal- Against Conviction- PPC 947-LD-22 AFTAB ETC. VS THE STATE ETC. Mr. Justice Sadiq Mahmud Khurram 11-03- 2025 2025 LHC 1963

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: The core question that requires adjudication is whether the fact that the vendor-respondent is a villager lady alone can be a ground for upending the sale transaction, when both the marginal witnesses have appeared and corroborated the stance of the purchaser?petitioner, and no connivance of the revenue officials concerned could be established? Held that in presence of overwhelming evidence supporting the validity of the transaction and in absence of any substantiated claim of fraud, the fact that the vendor is a villager lady alone cannot be made a ground for disputing the sale transaction. 648Murder Reference 2560743.308-

Summary: Where to establish a claim, evidence is required to be recorded, prima facie case cannot be assumed in favour of petitioner especially when he is yet to establish his right to hold possession of suit property or be transferred its ownership, which already vests in respondents, who are owners of the property, instead of petitioner, who is stated to be a tenant of respondents and his claim is based on mere agreement to sell which has been denied by the other side. Agreement to sell does not create any title but gives only a right to petitioner to claim specific performance of contract, if he can prove the said agreement as valid by refuting the claim of respondents that it was a forged and fabricated document. Besides, balance of convenience tilts in favour of respondents, owners of the property and not the petitioner, holder of disputed agreement to sell, as by grant of interim relief the respondents are likely to suffer more than what the petitioner would suffer if interim relief is refused. 647Civil Revision- Civil Revision (Against Decree)- Suit for Declaration 24-25 MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE VS MST. SURIYA BIBI Mr. Justice Anwaar Hussain 12- 03- 2025 2025 LHC 1180 PLJ 2025 Lahore 552 (Multan Bench, Multan)

Summary: (Against the order/judgment dated 19.12.2018 passed by the Islamabad High Court in Crl. A. No. 25 of 2011, J. A. No. 24 of 2011 and CSR No. 4-T of 2011). Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----S. 302(b)---Qatl-i-amd---Re-appraisal of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Accused was convicted for qatl-i-amd and was sentenced to death by Trial Court but High Court converted it into imprisonment for life---Validity---Retrieval of pistol from the possession of accused bore no legal significance, as laboratory's report revealed that both the recovered pistol and secured crime empties had been submitted on the same day, thereby casting doubt on potential for fabrication---Samples were dispatched to laboratory following a considerable delay, which stripped the positive report of any evidentiary significance---Oral and medical evidence contradicted each other---Prosecution witness claimed to have sustained firearm injury on his left ankle at the time of occurrence but medical certificate provided by doctor showed that the injury was on his right lower leg---Such disparity called into question the validity of evidence used against accused---Prosecution failed to prove its case against accused beyond reasonable doubt---Supreme Court set aside conviction and sentence awarded to accused and acquitted him of the charge---Appeal was allowed. Nazir Ahmad v. Muhammad Iqbal 2011 SCMR 527 and Nasrullah v. State 2017 SCMR 724 rel. Ansar Nawaz Mirza, Advocate Supreme Court and Syed Rifaqat Hussain Shah, Advocate-on-Record for Appellant. Ghulam Sarwar Nihang, Prosecutor General and Muhammad Imran, ASI for the State. Date of hearing: 12th March, 2025.

Summary: (On appeal against the judgment dated 07.06.2017 passed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore in Criminal Appeal No.1044 of 2012 and Murder Reference No. 241 of 2012). Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----S. 302(b)---Qatl-i-amd---Re-appraisal of evidence---Eye-witnesses--- Presence at place of occurrence---Proof---Ocular and medical evidence---Conflict---Benefit of doubt---Accused was convicted by Trial Court for qatl-i-amd and was sentenced to death but High Court altered the sentence to imprisonment for life---Validity---Reason mentioned by prosecution eye-witnesses for their presence at place of occurrence, which was situated in a different village could not be established---It was not safe to rely upon such evidence---Conflict between ocular account and medical evidence showed that infact prosecution eye-witnesses were not present at the spot at the relevant time---If eye-witnesses had been present at the time of occurrence they should have given correct number of injuries sustained by deceased---Prosecution failed to prove its case against accused beyond shadow of doubt---Even a single circumstance, which creates doubt in prosecution case, is sufficient to acquit accused---Case against accused was repleted with number of circumstances, which had created serious doubts in prosecution story---Supreme Court set aside conviction and sentence awarded to accused and while giving him benefit of doubt, acquitted him of the charge---Appeal was allowed. Mst. Sughra Begum and another v. Qaiser Pervez and others 2015 SCMR 1142; Muhammad Irshad v. Allah Ditta and others 2017 SCMR 142; Muhammad Ali v. The State 2015 SCMR 137; Usman alias Kaloo v. The State 2017 SCMR 622; Pathan v. The State 2015 SCMR 315; Zafar v. The State and others 2018 SCMR 326; Liaquat Ali v. The State 2008 SCMR 95; Zahoor Ahmad v. The State 2017 SCMR 1662; Tariq Pervez v. The State 1995 SCMR 1345 and Muhammad Akram v. The State 2009 SCMR 230 rel. Ms. Aisha Tasneem, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner. Mirza Abid Majeed, Deputy Prosecutor General Punjab for the State. Date of hearing: 12th March, 2025.

Summary: (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----S. 497(2)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 324, 337-H(2), 504, 147, 148 & 149---Attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, rash or negligent act to endanger human life or personal safety of others, intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace, rioting, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly---Bail, grant of---Further inquiry---Allegations against the appellant was that he along with his co-accused made firing upon the complainant party, and as a result brother of the complainant sustained firearm injuries---Record transpired that though the applicant had been charged by the complainant in the FIR for inflicting injury on the person of his brother through his repeater, however, as per Medico Legal Report, the nature of injury on his person was declared as ghayr-jaifah mutalahimah and the punishment provided for such kind of hurt under S.337-F(iii), P.P.C was imprisonment of either description for term which may extend to 03 years, therefore, the subject offence did not fall within the prohibitory clause of S.497, Cr.P.C.---Grant of bail in such like offences is a rule and refusal thereof is an exception---Upon a plain reading of the FIR, it became abundantly clear that enmity existed between the parties concerning a land dispute, with ongoing litigation---Circumstances of the present case, on the face of it, indicated the possibility that the accused might have been falsely implicated---Moreover, there was delay of eight hours in lodging the FIR and the injury attributed to the applicant did not fall within ambit of prohibitory clause---Applicant had only made single fire upon injured which hit him on his leg being non-vital part of his body making the offence as mentioned in the FIR---Applicant, however, did not repeat the fire despite having ample opportunity to do so, which showed that perhaps the applicant harboured no intention to kill the victim, hence, the applicability of S.324, P.P.C coupled with prosecution's evidence, in particular, the medical evidence of the injured as well as complainant and the recoveries, if any, allegedly made during the course of investigation, shall be determined by the Trial Court after recording of evidence pro and contra---Further, the challan in the subject matter had already been submitted in the Court and the trial was ripe for its commencement, therefore, the guilt or otherwise of the applicant shall better be adjudged by the Trial Court during the course of trial---Even otherwise, bail does not mean the acquittal of accused but only change of custody from government agencies to the surety, who on furnishing bail bonds, takes responsibility to produce the accused whenever required to be produced---Bail application was allowed, in circumstances. Muhammad Tanveer v. The State and another PLD 2017 SC 733; Tariq Bashir and 5 others v. The State PLD 1995 SC 34 and Syed Amanullah Shah v. The State and another PLD 1996 SC 241 rel. (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----S. 497---Bail order---Observations of the Court---Scope---Observations articulated in bail orders are tentative and should neither prejudice nor preempt the merits of the case at the stage of trial. Abid Hussain Chang for Appellant. Ms. Sana Memon, Assistant P.G for the State. Date of hearing: 17th February, 2025. Order Abdul Hamid Bhurgri, J.--- The applicant having been unsuccessful in securing bail from the Trial Court in Crime No.129 of 2024, registered at PS Sakrand, for offences under Sections 324,337-H(2), 504, 147, 148,149 P.P.C, now seeks post arrest bail through the instant bail application. 2. It is alleged that on 03.04.2024, the complainant, accompanied by his brother, Muhammad Farhan, was returning from their lands to their house in morning time and when they reached near Naqur Shakh Bridge, National Highway, they saw that on three motorcycles the present applicant along with co-accused Abdul Nasir, Nadir Ali, Zeeshan, Sajid Ali, Umair, Malhar, Niaz Ali and Kamran, some of them were armed with weapons and some having sticks in their hands, appeared there. Accused Abdul Nasir and Sumair Ali made straight fires from their weapons upon Muhammad Farhan which hit him on his right and left legs and he fell down; whereas other co-accused made aerial firing. On cries of complainant party local people came at the spot and thereafter accused fied away using filthy language against complainant party. Consequently, instant FIR was lodged. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant contends that applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated by the complainant in the alleged crime. He further contends that all the sections applied in the FIR are bailable except Section 324 PC which though does not attract in his case as applicant did not repeat the fire showing that he had no intention of murder of the injured. He next submits that injury allegedly attributed to applicant is on non-vital part of the body of injured and has been declared by the medico Legal Officer as ghayr-jaifah mutalahimah and ghayr-jaifah damiyah, providing sentences upto 03/01 years respectively, falling within the ambit of non-serious category of injuries as per the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860. He also contends that FIR is delayed for about eight hours though the place of incident and Police Station are at some distance. He lastly argued that applicant is behind the bars since his arrest and till the trial is concluded he may not be taken to a long custody, therefore, prayed for his release on bail. 4. In contra, learned APG opposes the bail plea of the applicant on the ground that applicant has been assigned specific role of causing firearm injury to brother of complainant, therefore, he does not deserve any leniency in the shape of his release on bail. She, however, admits that accused did not repeat the injury. She further submits that the punishment provided by law for Section 337-F(iii) P.P.C is three years, which does not exceed the limits of prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.P.C. 5. On the last date of hearing complainant was present and stated that his Counsel was unwell. Today, he once again chosen to remain absent, hence, this ball application has been heard. 6. I have heard the arguments of the learned Counsel for the applicant as well as learned APG for the State at a substantial length and have gone through the record with their assistance. 7. The record so furnished transpires that though the applicant has been charged by the complainant in the FIR for inflicting injury on the person of his brother through his repeater, however, as per Medico Legal Report, the nature of injury on his person was declared as ghayr-jaifah mutalahimah and the punishment provided for such kind of hurt under Section 337-F(iii) P.P.C is imprisonment of either description for term which may extend to 03 years, therefore, the subject offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.P.C. Grant of bail in such like offences is a rule and refusal thereof is an exception. In case titled as "Muhammad Tanveer v. The State and another" reported as PLD 2017 SC 733, the Honourable Supreme Court has held as under:- "Once this Court has held in categorical terms that grant of bail in offences not falling within the prohibitory limb of section 497, Cr.P.C shall be a rule and refusal shall be an exception then, the Courts of the country should follow this principle in its letter and spirit because principle of law enunciated by this Court are constitutionally binding on all Courts throughout the country including the Special Tribunals and Special Courts." Similarly, in case titled as "Tariq Bashir and 05 others v. The State reported as PLD 1995 SC 34, the Honourable Supreme Court has also affirmed the same rational by observing as under:- "That grant of bail in offences punishable with imprisonment for less than ten years is a rule and refusal is an exception, which are missing in the present case." 8. Upon a plain reading of the FIR, it becomes abundantly clear that enmity exists between the parties concerning a land dispute, with ongoing litigation. The circumstances of the present case, on the face of it, indicate the possibility that the accused may have been falsely implicated. There is delay of eight hours in lodging the FIR, and the injury attributed to the bail applicant does not fall within ambit of prohibitory clause. 9. Now coming to ingredients of Section 324 P.P.C, it is clear from the record that applicant has only made single fire upon injured which hit him on his leg being non-vital part of his body making the offence as referred to above. He, however, did not repeat the fire despite having ample opportunity to do so, which shows that perhaps the applicant harboured no intention to kill the victim, hence, the applicability of Section 324 P.P.C coupled with prosecution's evidence, in particular, the medical evidence of the injured as well as complainant and the recoveries, if any, allegedly made during the course of investigation, the guilt of the applicant shall be determined by the learned Trial Court after recording of evidence pro and contra. It has been held by the Honourable Supreme Court that whenever even a slight doubt arises with respect to participation of an accused person then it would be appropriate to enlarge the said accused person on bail instead of rotting him in jail. In case titled as "Syed Amanullah Shah v. The State and another" reported as PLD 1996 SC 241, the Honourable Supreme Court has held as follows:- "So whenever reasonable doubt arises with regard to the participation of an accused person in the crime or about the truth/probability of the prosecution case and the evidence proposed to be produced in support of the charge, the accused should not be deprived of benefit of bail. In such a situation, it would be better to keep an accused person on bail then in the jail, during the trial". 10. Further, the challan in the subject matter has already been submitted in the Court and the Trial is ripe for its commencement, therefore, the guilt or otherwise of the applicant shall better be adjudged by the learned trial Court during the course of trial. Even otherwise, bail does not mean the acquittal of accused but only change of custody from government agencies to the surety, who on furnishing bail bonds, takes responsibility to produce the accused whenever required to be produced. 11. For what has been stated above, this bail application is allowed and applicant is admitted to post arrest bail subject to his furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs.200,000/- (Two Hundred Thousand) and P.R bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court. 12. It is however, categorically clarified that the observations articulated herein are tentative and shall neither prejudice nor pre-empt the merits of the case at the stage of trial. JK/S-27/Sindh Application allowed.

Summary: (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----S. 302(b)---Qatl-i-amd---Re-appraisal of evidence---Setting wife on fire---Cold blooded murder---Quantum of sentence---Doctrine of "rarest of rare"---Applicability---Accused was convicted for qatl-i-amd and sentenced to death---Validity---Motive attributed to accused was deceased's opposition to his intention of selling the house, which stood proved on record---It is a matter of common experience that domestic disputes over property frequently arise in our society---Resorting to such a brutal act of setting one's spouse on fire reflected violent disposition of accused and pointed towards premeditation---Established motive, when read in conjunction with brutal and deliberate manner in which offence was committed, left no room for doubt that murder of deceased was preplanned and intentional---Crime committed by accused was extremely heinous---Under the doctrine of "rarest of rare", death sentence may be imposed where the offence is exceptionally brutal, shocking to the collective conscience of society and where there exists a compelling need for deterrence---Offence was of the most brutal nature, wherein accused was found guilty of cold-blooded murder of his own wife, mother of his children, that too within the confines of their matrimonial home and in the presence of their young children---Supreme Court declined to extend any leniency to accused and maintained conviction and death sentence awarded to accused---Appeal was dismissed. (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b) & 34---Qatl-i-amd and abetment---Re-appraisal of evidence---Abetment---Proof---Principal accused murdered his wife by setting her on fire and he was sentenced to death---Accused was alleged to have abetted the principal accused in committing murder of his wife---Courts below convicted the accused for qatl-i-amd and sentenced him to imprisonment for life--- Validity---Record neither established presence of accused at the time of occurrence nor had any specific role been assigned to him in the crime report lodged by investigating officer---Prosecution failed to prove involvement of accused or his nexus with alleged offence---Supreme Court set aside conviction and sentence awarded to accused by the Courts below and he was acquitted of the charge---Appeal was allowed. Syed Rifaqat Hussain Shah, Advocate Supreme Court for Appellant (in both cases). Siraj Ali Khan, Addl. PG, Sindh for the State. Complainant in-person (via VL from Karachi) Date of hearing: 12th March, 2025.