sharif2uys/supreme-court-of-pak-judgments huggingface dataset:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(Appellate Jurisdiction) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
PRESENT:  
MR. JUSTICE MUNIB AKHTAR 
MR. JUSTICE QAZI MUHAMMAD AMIN AHMED 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Criminal Petition No.167-P of 2021 
(Against the order dated 22.10.2021 passed by the 
Peshawar High Court Peshawar in Cr. M. No.3206-
P/2021) 
 
 
 
Abdul Rehman 
… Petitioner(s) 
Vs 
 
The State and another  
… 
Respondent(s) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
For the Petitioner(s)  
: 
Mr. Muhammad Tariq Shah, ASC 
 
 
 
For the State 
: 
Sayyed Nayyab Hassan Gardezi, 
Deputy Attorney General with Tariq I.O. 
 
Date of Hearing 
: 
09.12.2021 
 
 
 
ORDER 
 
 
Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed, J.:- The petitioner is 
accused of having cyber stalked defamatory messages along with 
photographs of complainant’s daughter in law to her husband; the 
matter was reported to the Federal Investigating Agency, pursuant 
whereto, in the wake of a detailed inquiry, devices transmitting the 
impugned communication were secured upon his disclosure that 
conclusively established his culpability as the source behind 
family’s embarrassment. Attempts for post arrest bail failed lastly 
before a learned Judge-in-Chamber of the Peshawar High Court 
Peshawar vide impugned order dated 22.10.2021, leave to appeal 
wherefrom is being prayed for primarily on the ground that the 
offences complained do not fall within the prohibitory clause of 
section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 and 
investigation being complete there is no justification to depart from 
the rule. 
 
 
Cr.P.167/2021 
-:2:-
2. 
Heard. Record perused.  
3. 
Ordinarily, upon conclusion of investigation in criminal 
cases falling outside the remit of “prohibition” motions for release 
on bail are favourably received, nonetheless, the practice is not 
without limitations. In the present case, privacy of a young lady 
has grievously been intruded to the utter embarrassment of her 
family; even her marriage went into peril. The incident was 
reported by her father-in-law and, thus, in the facts and 
circumstances of the case, we do not feel persuaded, in our 
discretion, by the submission made at the bar so as to take a 
different view than concurrently taken by the Courts below. 
Petition fails. Leave declined. However, the learned trial Court is 
directed to expeditiously proceed with the trial so as to conclude it 
within a period of four months. Investigating Officer, in attendance, 
is directed to ensure presence of witnesses on the date fixed for 
recording of evidence.  
       
 
Judge 
Judge 
Islamabad, the 
9th December, 2021 
Azmat/*
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(Appellate Jurisdiction) 
 
 
 
PRESENT: 
Mr. Justice Maqbool Baqar 
Mr. Justice Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed 
 
Criminal Petition No.1672-L of 2019 
(Against order dated 02.12.2019 
passed by Lahore High Court Lahore 
in Crl. Misc. No.51181-B of 2019) 
 
 
Zulfiqar 
  
 
…Petitioner(s) 
 
 
 
 
 
Versus 
 
The State & another 
…Respondent(s) 
 
For the Petitioner(s): 
Mr. Muhammad Ramzan Chaudhary, 
ASC 
 
Mr. Arshad Ali Chaudhry, AOR 
 
For the State: 
Mirza Abid Majeed,  
 
Deputy Prosecutor General Punjab 
 
with Abid, I.O. 
  
  
For the Respondent(s): 
Mr. Sajjad Hussain, ASC 
 
 
 Date of hearing: 
15.1.2020. 
 
ORDER 
 
 
 
Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed, J.- Behind bars since 
14.06.2019, Zulfiqar, petitioner seeks admission to bail. It is 
alleged that on the fateful day, he alongwith his two sons 
accompanied by three unknown assailants, each armed with a .30 
caliber pistol, confronted Muhammad Shakeel Jahangir, deceased 
in the backdrop of a motive relating to a dispute over property; he 
is attributed first shot to the deceased on his right shin followed by 
fire shots by the co-accused. Autopsy revealed three entry wounds. 
Effective role qua the deceased assigned in the crime report 
notwithstanding, the petitioner has been found by the Investigating 
Officer to have merely abetted the crime without being at the spot. 
2. 
 
Heard. Record perused. 
3. 
 
Accompanied by two able bodied sons, each lethally 
armed, whether the petitioner had any occasion to venture the 
Civil Petition No.1839 of 2018 
 
2
occurrence is an issue to be best settled after recording of 
evidence. Number of fire shots sustained by the deceased is not 
commensurate with the volley of fires collectively made by the 
assailants including the unknown is a circumstance that 
additionally warrants further probe. Acceptance of plea raised by 
the petitioner, statedly in his late sixties, is yet another 
circumstance converging in his favour; his culpability certainly 
calls for further probe, thus, a case for his release on bail stands 
made out. The petitioner shall be released on his furnishing bonds 
in the sum of Rs.500,000/- with two sureties each in the like 
amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.  The petition 
is converted into appeal and allowed.  
 
 
Judge 
 
 
 
 
Judge 
Islamabad  
15th January, 2020 
Not approved for reporting 
Azmat/-
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
 
(Appellate Jurisdiction) 
 
 
 
PRESENT: 
MR. JUSTICE IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, C.J 
MR. JUSTICE IJAZ AHMED CHAUDHRY 
MR. JUSTICE GULZAR AHMED 
 
 
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 170 OF 2013 
 
 
 
Haseeba Taimor Afridi 
…. Petitioner 
 
Versus 
 
The State & another 
…. Respondents 
 
 
 
For the Petitioner  
 
Malik Waheed Anjum, ASC 
 
 
 
 
 
Mr. Arshad Ali Chaudhry, AOR 
 
For the State 
 
 
Mr. Asjad Javed Ghurral, Addl. P.G. 
 
 
 
 
 
a/w Mr. Imtiaz Ahmed Butt, SHO 
 
 
 
 
 
Asghar Ali, S.I. 
 
For the Complainant  
Mr. Zulfiqar Ahmed Bhutta, ASC 
 
Date of hearing   
 
05.6.2013 
 
 
ORDER 
 
 
 
Heard learned counsel for the parties.  Learned 
Additional Prosecutor General candidly conceded that so far 
prosecution has not collected incriminating evidence against the 
petitioner to justify her involvement/detention.  
 
2. 
 
We fail to understand that when there was no 
incriminating evidence as to why the police caused the arrest of 
Crl.P. 170/2013 
2 
the petitioner who is stated to be of 15 years of age and 
subsequent thereto despite of subjecting her to investigation no 
evidence was brought on record then why she was sent to 
judicial lockup.  In this behalf the Supervisory Officer, 
responsible to monitor the investigation of the subordinate 
officers, is equally responsible.  Not only this, the Magistrate 
Raja Faisal Rasheed who had been granting remand, should 
have also looked into the file instead of remanding the petitioner 
to police custody without any justification.  Under section 167 
Cr.P.C. it is the duty of the Magistrate to satisfy himself that 
there are grounds for believing that the accusation or 
information is well founded for justifying custody of an accused 
with the police.   
 
3. 
 
In the circumstances we allow ad-interim bail to the 
petitioner Haseeba Taimoor Afridi d/o Taimoor Afridi subject to 
her furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees 
five thousand) only to the satisfaction of the Ilaqua Magistrate. 
 
4. 
 
Explanation be called for from the SSP In-charge of 
Investigation, 
the 
SHO 
as 
well 
as 
the 
Investigating 
Officer/Officers, named above, to state the reason for causing 
arrest and detention of the petitioner.   
 
5. 
 
The Magistrate shall also send his explanation 
through the Sessions Judge, Rawalpindi, to explain as to why 
without adhering to the relevant provisions of law, noted 
Crl.P. 170/2013 
3 
hereinabove, in a mechanical manner police remand was 
granted permission of judicial remand was granted followed by 
judicial remand as presently she is in custody in Adiala Jail.  
Put up on 7th June, 2013. 
 
Chief Justice 
 
Judge 
 
Judge 
Islamabad 
05th June, 2013 
(Zulfiqar)
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(Appellate Jurisdiction) 
 
PRESENT: 
Mr. Justice Mushir Alam 
Mr. Justice Yahya Afridi 
Mr. Justice Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed 
 
 
 
Criminal Petition Nos.172 of 2020 & 140 of 2021 
(Against the judgment dated 23.1.2020 passed by 
the High Court of Sindh, Sukkur Bench in Crl. 
Revision No.D-28/2013 – and against the judgment 
dated 01.02.2021 passed by the High Court of Sindh 
Sukkur Bench in Crl. Jail Appeal No.S-30/2013)  
 
 
 
Abdul Sattar Mahar 
(in both cases) 
 
 
…Petitioner(s) 
 
 
 
 
 
Versus 
 
 
 
 
 
  
The State & another 
(in both cases) 
 
…Respondent(s) 
 
For the Petitioner(s): 
Mr. Aftab Alam Yasir, ASC 
 
Syed Rifaqat Hussain Shah, AOR 
 
For the State: 
Mr. Hussain Bux Baloch,  
 
Addl. Prosecutor General, Sindh 
 
Date of hearing: 
30.03.2021. 
 
JUDGMENT 
 
 
 
    Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed, J.- Dodo son of 
Muhammad Azeem, indicted by a learned Additional Sessions Judge at 
Ubaro on the complaint of Abdul Sattar Mahar, no other than his nephew, 
for committing Qatl-i-Amd of his sister, 19; Rais Kouro (PW-1) survived the 
assault with a gunshot wound, statedly, on his chest, in the backdrop of a 
dispute over immovable property; convicted on both counts, he was 
sentenced to imprisonment for life and 10-years R.I. respectively with a 
direction to pay compensation as well as fine vide judgment dated  
23.04.2013, assailed before the High Court of Sindh. The High Court 
despite noting “sufficient discrepancies” and while taking into account the 
period of incarceration underwent by the convict, proceeded to reduce the 
sentence to the period already undergone and disposed of the appeal vide 
impugned judgment dated 01.02.2021, vires whereof, are being assailed 
by the complainant through two separate petitions i.e. Cr.P. No.172 of 
2021 and Cr. P. No.140 of 2021. 
Criminal Petition Nos.172 of 2020 & 140 of 2021 
2
2. 
 
Learned 
counsel 
for 
the 
petitioner 
contends 
that 
notwithstanding 
certain 
observations 
apparently 
favouring 
the 
respondent, there was no occasion for the learned Judge-in-Chamber to 
reduce respondent’s sentence to the period already undergone by him 
while maintaining his conviction under clause (b) of section 302 of the 
Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, that mandatorily provides penalty of death or 
life imprisonment. It is lastly argued that the prosecution had successfully 
driven home the charge on the strength of natural witnesses, i.e. inmates 
of the house of occurrence that included an injured as well in the face of 
motive clearly establishing a breach between the relations in the first 
degree. 
 
 
Send for the respondent through bailable warrants in the sum 
of Rs.100,000/- with one surety in the like amount, returnable to the 
Deputy Registrar (Judicial) of this Court.  District Police Officer Ghotki 
shall ensure execution of warrant within 30 days of receipt of this order. 
 
 
 
Judge 
 
 
 
Judge 
 
 
 
Judge 
Islamabad, the 
30th March, 2021 
Not approved for reporting 
Azmat/-
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(Appellate Jurisdiction) 
 
 
 
PRESENT: 
Mr. Justice Gulzar Ahmed, HCJ 
Mr. Justice Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed 
 
 
 
Criminal Petition No.21-P of 2020  
Against the judgment dated 28.02.2020 passed by 
the Peshawar High Court Peshawar in Cr.MBA. 
Bi,57-P/2020) 
 
 
 
Zahoor Khan 
 
 
 
…Petitioner(s) 
 
 
 
 
 
Versus 
 
 
Akhter Muhammad & another  
 
 
…Respondent(s) 
 
For the Petitioner(s): 
Mr. Akhter Ali Khan, ASC 
 
For the Complainant: 
Mr. Anis Muhammad Shahzad, ASC 
 
For the State: 
Miss Aisha Tasneem, State Counsel 
 
with Iqbal Mashwair, I.O/S.I. 
 
 
Date of hearing: 
21.05.2020. 
 
ORDER 
 
 
 
Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed, J.- Declined downstairs 
throughout, Zahoor Khan, petitioner herein, seeks admission to bail; 
alongside co-accused, he is alleged to have fatally targeted Yaheer 
Shah on 25.10.2014 at 18:00 hours within the remit of Police Station 
Katling District Mardan in the backdrop of a motive that hovered over a 
piece of land; away from law, he was arrested after a period exceeding 
half a decade. Autopsy report confirmed receipt of as many as six entry 
wounds.  
2. 
 
Heard. Record perused. 
3. 
 
Argument regarding conflict between ocular account and 
medical evidence, seemingly otherwise beside the mark, cannot be 
attended within the barriers of tentative assessment, particularly in the 
face of reflections of inordinate absence from law. Ocular account, 
Criminal Petition No.21-P of 2020  
 
2
accompanied by medical evidence as well as investigative conclusions, 
constitute “reasonable grounds” within the contemplation of Section 
497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, standing in impediment 
to petitioner’s release in the absence of any consideration calling for 
further probe. Impugned views being well within the bounds of law 
need no interference. Petition fails. Leave declined.   
 
 
 
 
Chief Justice 
 
 
 
 
 
Judge 
Islamabad, the 
21st May, 2020 
Not approved for reporting 
Azmat/-
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(Appellate Jurisdiction) 
 
 
PRESENT:  
Mr. Justice Mushir Alam 
Mr. Justice Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed 
 
Criminal Petition No.224 of 2017 
(against 
impugned 
judgment 
dated 
11.1.2017 passed by the Lahore High Court 
Rawalpindi Bench in Crl. Appeal No.63 of 
2016). 
 
Rifat Hussain 
…Petitioner(s) 
 
VERSUS 
 
The State  
…Respondent(s) 
 
 
For the Petitioner(s) 
: Mr. Muhammad Munir Paracha, ASC   
 
 
 
 
For the State 
: Mr. Muhammad Jaffar D.P.G. 
Punjab. 
 
 
 
Date of Hearing 
: 12.09.2019. 
 
O R D E R 
 
 
Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed, J.- Indicted for 
homicide, Riffat Hussain, petitioner herein, was returned a guilty 
verdict by the trial Court; convicted under Clause (b) of Section  
302 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 he was sentenced to 
imprisonment for life with a direction to pay compensation 
alongside benefit of section 382-B of the Code of Criminal 
Procedure 1898; his appeal met with no better fate.  
2. 
 
   Habib is deceased of the case; he was allegedly 
done to death on the fateful day at 6:30 p.m. with multiple 
shots, fired by the petitioner as well as Ghulam Abbas  
co-accused, since killed in a police encounter, in the backdrop of 
a motive relating to the murder of petitioner’s brother at his 
hands, way back in the year 1997. Incident was reported at 3:00 
a.m. after mid night whereas autopsy was conducted at 9:00 
a.m. Delay in recourse to law as well as autopsy is pressed into 
service to argue that the witnesses were staged managed as the 
Criminal Petition No.224 of 2017 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2 
 
incident went un-witnessed; to substantiate further, it is next 
argued that it was for this reason that the dead body was shifted 
from the alleged venue wherefrom no casing was recovered 
despite allegation of multiple fire shots as confirmed by the 
autopsy report, rendering recovery of weapon as inconsequential 
as considered by the learned High Court itself. Elimination of  
co-accused in a police ‘encounter’ has been pointed out to 
suggest that all was not well with the prosecution; non-
appearance of the Investigating Officer without any valid cause, 
according to the learned counsel, cause serious prejudice to the 
petitioner in his quest to vindicate his position, circumstances 
that escaped notice downstairs. It would be expedient to re-
appraise prosecution evidence with a view to ensure safe 
administration of criminal justice, leave is granted.    
 
 
 
 
JUDGE 
 
 
 
 
Islamabad, the 
12th  of September, 2019 
Azmat/* 
JUDGE
 



 
   






 


  




  


  



 
  

  



 
  


 
      



 



  


  
   









    









 




  



 
    
 





 


 


  

    
 

 
  

1
Crl.P.L.A. No. 230/2016
 

 

       




 


(SNGPL)
 
     
(FIA)






 

 
    







  
 

    


  
  


 







 

 

 




   


   


  





   
   








  


 

 


  

 



   




 

   

  




     


  

  







      

    



  












 
 

 





  


    






 

 

    



   
  
 



 
    


2
Crl.P.L.A. No. 230/2016

  

 
 
 

 (SNGPL)
 
     
(FIA)

  




     
  


  

  


  

  
 

 





  






  




   
 

  


  

 
    

 




      


  


  
    


 



 

   
  




 

     



  
      
  



 

 









 
 

 




3
Crl.P.L.A. No. 230/2016
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(Appellate Jurisdiction) 
PRESENT: 
Mr. Justice Maqbool Baqar 
Mr. Justice Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed 
 
 
Criminal Petition No.231-K of 2019 
(Against order dated 21.10.2019 passed 
by High Court of Sindh Circuit Court 
Hyderabad in Cr. Bail Application. No.S-
988 of  2019) 
 
 
Abdul Aziz Memon 
 
   
 
…Petitioner(s) 
 
 
 
 
 
Versus 
The State  
 …Respondent(s) 
 
For the Petitioner(s): 
Mr. Bashir A. Almani, ASC 
 
For the State: 
Mr. Hussain Bux,  
 
Additional Prosecutor General Sindh 
 
Date of hearing: 
26.12.2019 
 
ORDER 
 
 
      Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed, J.- Apprehending arrest, 
Abdul Aziz Memon, petitioner herein, seeks bail in anticipation thereto; 
he is accused in Crime No.109, registered with Police Station Matyari, 
on the complaint of Hakim Ali, allegedly duped for appointment as a 
Naib Qasid in the Education Department, in lieu of payment of 
Rs.500,000. An appointment letter, received by the complainant, 
turned out a fake instrument after two years service without pay.  
 
Before the Courts below, the petitioner pleaded innocence, citing 
a dispute over a transaction involving wheat crop for a consideration of 
Rs.200,000 
paid 
through 
different 
bank 
cheques 
issued 
in 
complainant’s favour, followed by a default; the same story is 
reiterated, nonetheless, in the absence of any proof or investigative 
support.    
2. 
 
Heard. Record perused. 
3. 
 
Complainant’s futile service as a Naib Qasid at a school for 
a period of two years, abruptly terminated when the appointment letter 
Cr.P. No. 231-k OF 2019 
2 
provided by the petitioner, upon verification, was found as a forged 
instrument; two years of service and a fake appointment letter are 
circumstances, resting upon incriminatory statements, singularly 
pointed upon petitioner’s culpability that he cannot ward off by 
clamouring a bald plea of mala fide, structured upon denial and a 
parallel story. Grant of pre-arrest bail is an extraordinary remedy, 
rooted into equity, to protect the honour and freedom of the innocent in 
criminal cases actuated by abuse of process of law for oblique motives 
and purposes; this protection cannot be extended in every run of the 
mill criminal case without grievously hindering the investigative 
process. View taken by the High Court, being well within the remit of 
law,  does not call for interference. Petition fails. Leave refused. 
 
 
 
Judge 
 
 
 
 
 
Judge 
Karachi, the  
26th December, 2019 
Not approved for reporting 
Azmat*
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(Appellate Jurisdiction) 
 
 
PRESENT: 
Mr. Justice Umar Ata Bandial 
Mr. Justice Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed 
 
 
Criminal Petition No.234 of 2020 
(Against order dated 3.2.2020 passed by 
the Peshawar High Court Peshawar in Crl. 
Misc. No.3759-P/2019) 
 
 
Asfand Yar Khan & another 
 
 
…Petitioner(s) 
 
 
 
 
 
Versus 
 
The State & another 
…Respondent(s) 
 
 
 
For the Petitioner(s): 
Mr. Basharatullah Khan, ASC 
 
Syed Rifaqat Hussain Shah, AOR 
 
For the State(s): 
Mr. Arshad Yousafzai, ASC  
 
with Durran Shah, Inspector 
 
 
Date of hearing: 
02.04.2020. 
 
ORDER 
 
 
 
Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed, J.- Asfand Yar Khan and 
Salman Khan, real brothers inter se, seek admission to bail; they have 
been arrayed as accused through supplementary statement dated 
4.9.2019, in a case of homicide, registered on 17.8.2019 at Police 
Station Paharipura Peshawar on the statement of Nadim Safdar, 
acclaimed witness of the incident; he had blamed Asad, Farhan, Imran, 
Amjad and Aamir as the culprits for committing murder of his sister 
Sumera Safdar and driver Inaam Lag, who drove the entourage to 
attend proceedings in a case of murderous assault in District Courts 
Peshawar. Motive for the crime is bad blood over property with a string 
of cases raging between the parties. Sumera Safdar’s daughter through 
supplementary statement joined the petitioners with the co-accused, 
initially omitted by the complainant as well as the witnesses who 
claimed to have survived the assault.  
2. 
 
Heard. Record perused. 
3. 
 
Be that as it may, the petitioners were not named in the 
crime report as being alongside the accused who gunned down the 
Criminal Petition No.234 of 2020  
 
 
2
deceased; all the witnesses are unanimous on the number of accused 
as five; the omission is intriguing and by itself brings petitioners’ case 
within the remit of subsection 2 of section 497 of the Code of Criminal 
Procedure 1898. Criminal Petition is converted into appeal and same is 
allowed; the petitioners shall be released upon furnishing bonds in the 
sum of Rs.500,000/- with one surety each in the like to the satisfaction 
of the learned trial Court/Duty Judge.  
 
 
 
Judge 
 
 
 
 
Judge 
Islamabad, the 
2nd April, 2020 
Not approved for reporting 
Azmat/-