https://www.facebook.com/117563380077576/

Sikandar Law Firm, Liaquatpur (2026)

28/09/2026

2024 SCMR 934
PLJ 2024 SUPREME COURT (CRIMINAL) 8

چیف جسٹس کی سربراہی میں سپریم کورٹ کے تین رکنی بینچ نے ہدایت کی ہے کہ موقع پر موجود پولیس اہلکار منشیات کے مقدمات میں قانون شہادت کے مطابق بر آمد ہونے والی منشیات،ملزم اور موقع واردات کی تصاویر اتارا کریں تاکہ رنگے ہاتھوں پکڑے جانے والے ملزم موقع کے شواہد کو نہ جھٹلا سکے ،عدالت نے قرار دیا کہ موبائل فون ہر پولیس اہلکار کی جیب میں موجود ہوتا ہے اور قانون شہادت کے مطابق موقع کی تصاویر یا عکس بندی قابل قبول ثبوت ہے ،عدالت نے آرڈر لکھواتے ہوئے قراردیا کہ منشیات سے پورا معاشرہ تباہ ہوجاتا ہے ،نہ صرف منشیات کے عادی لوگ بلکہ ان سے جڑے ہوئے افراد کی زندگیاں مشکلات اور مسائل کا شکار ہوکر تباہ ہوجاتی ہیں،عدالت نے انسداد منشیات ایکٹ کے مطابق علاقے کے معززین کی موجودگی میں تلاشیاں لینے کی ہدایت کی اور قرار دیا کہ پولیس اور اے این ایف کے اہلکار موبائل فون کا استعمال نہیں کرتے ،کم ازکم موقع کی تصاویر اتارنے کیلئے موبائل فون کا استعمال کیا جائے ،قانون شہادت کے سیکشن 164کے تحت یہ قابل قبول ثبوت ہے ،عدالت نے چالان جمع کرنے میں تاخیر اور قانون کے مطابق شواہد جمع نہ کرنے پر ملزم کی ضمانت کی درخواست ایک لاکھ روپے کے ضمانتی مچلکوں کے عوض منظور کرلی ،دوران سماعت چیف جسٹس نے ریمارکس دئیے کہ صرف پنجاب میں ہزاروں پراسیکیوٹرز تعینات ہیں جن پر اربوں روپے خرچ ہوجاتے ہیں ،چیف جسٹس نے پراسیکیوٹر کو مخاطب کرتے ہوئے کہا کہ ٹیکس دہندگان کے اربوں روپے خرچ ہورہے ہیں ،بدلے میں ٹیکس دہندگان کو کیا دے رہے ہیں۔
حکم نامے کی کاپی اینٹی نارکوٹکس فورس (اے این ایف) کے سربراہ، سیکریٹری وزارت نارکوٹکس کنٹرول، تمام آئی جیز اور صوبائی ہوم ڈپارٹمنٹ کو بھجوائی جانے کا حکم بھی صادر کیا گیا۔

5. We are aware that section 25 of the Act excludes the applicability of section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 which requires two or more respectable inhabitants of the locality to be associated when search is made. However, we fail to understand why the police and members of the Anti-Narcotics Force (‘ANF’) do not record or photograph when search, seizure and/or arrest is made. Article 164 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 specifically permits the use of any evidence that may have become available because of modern devices or techniques, and its Article 165 overrides all other laws.

6. In narcotic cases the prosecution witnesses usually are ANF personnel or policemen who surely would have a cell phone with an in-built camera. In respect of those arrested with narcotic substances generally there are only a few witnesses, and most, if not all, are government servants. However, trials are unnecessarily delayed, and resultantly the accused seek bail first in the trial court which if not granted to them is then filed in the High Court and there too if it is declined, petitions seeking bail are then filed in this Court. If the police and ANF were to use their mobile phone cameras to record and/or take photographs of the search, seizure and arrest, it would be useful evidence to establish the presence of the accused at the crime scene, the possession by the accused of the narcotic substances, the search and its seizure. It may also prevent false allegations being levelled against ANF/police that the narcotic substance was foisted upon them for some ulterior motives.

7. Those selling narcotic substances make their buyers addicts, destroy their state of mind, health and productivity, and adversely affect the lives of their family members. The very fabric of society is damaged. ANF and the Police forces are paid out of the public exchequer. It is incumbent upon them to stem this societal ill. The Prosecution services, paid out of the public exchequer, is also not advising the ANF/police to be do this simple act of making a recording and/or taking photographs as stated above.

8. A consequence of poor investigation, not supported by evidence adversely affects the cases of the prosecution. The courts, which too are sustained by the public exchequer, are burdened with having to attend bail applications because the commencement and conclusion of the trial is delayed. It is time that all institutions act professionally and use all available lawful means to obtain evidence. A credible prosecution and adjudication process also improves public perception. We expect that all concerned will attend to these matters with the attention that they demand, because the menace of narcotic substances in society has far reaching consequences: by destroying entire households, creating societal problems and casting a heavy financial burden on the State when drug addicts are required to be treated. Moreover, research indicates that drugs addicts resort to all methods to obtain drugs, including committing crimes.

9. Copy of this order be sent to the Secretary Ministry of Narcotics Control, Government of Pakistan, Director-General, Anti-Narcotics Force, the Secretaries of the Home Departments of all the provinces, InspectorGenerals of Police of all the provinces and of the Islamabad Capital Territory. They may also consider whether they want to amend the ANF/Police rules to ensure making video recordings/taking photographs whenever possible with regard to capturing, preserving and using such evidence at trial.

Crl.P.1192/2023
Zahid Sarfaraz Gill v. The State thr. A.G., Islamabad

28/09/2026

2024 YLR 1924
Allah Ditta vs State

Medical evidence---Inadmissible---Medical officer dying before being cross-examined---Effect---Accused were charged that they in furtherance of common intention committed murder of the brother of the complainant by inflicting hatchet blows---Record showed that the Medical Officer who conducted the Medico-Legal Examination followed by Post-mortem Examination later died---Senior Clerk of the hospital appeared and tendered the Medico-Legal and Post-mortem Reports without narrating the contents of such reports therefore, description of injuries, nature of injuries, kind of weapon and cause of death could not be brought on the record---Without appearance of Medical Officer, Medico-Legal Certificate and Post-mortem Reports were of no use for the prosecution because Medical Officer had not been tested through cross-examination with respect to his observation/findings made in such reports---Complainant stated that support of medical evidence was available in the terms that during the stage when only co-accused was facing the trial, Medical Officer appeared as witness and his statement was also recorded---Even such statement had not been tendered in evidence by the prosecution against the accused which could not be used against them by merely referring it from the record because it was recorded in their absence, therefore, by all means prosecution hardly had support of medical evidence in the case---In such circumstances, prosecution had failed to bring on record the secondary evidence of Medico-Legal and Postmortem Reports in accordance with law and contents of such reports if deposed by the Medical Officer in the absence of accused could not be used against them---Even acclaimed contents of both reports allegedly deposed by late Medical Officer were not put to the accused in their statement under S.342 of Cr.P.C., therefore, medical evidence provided no support to prosecution case---

28/09/2026

2024 SCMR 1191
The proper and legal way of dealing with a criminal case is that the Court should first discuss the prosecution case/evidence to come to an independent finding about the reliability of the prosecution witnesses, particularly the eye-witnesses and the probability of the story told by them, and then examine the statement of the accused under section 342, Cr.P.C; the statement under section 340(2), Cr.P.C. and the defence evidence. If the Court disbelieves the prosecution evidence, then the Court must accept the statement of the accused as a whole without scrutiny. If the statement under section 342, Cr.P.C. is exculpatory, then the accused must be acquitted. If the statement under section 342, Cr.P.C. believed as a whole, constitutes some offence punishable under the law, then the accused should be convicted for that offence only.

In the case of counter versions, if the Court believes the prosecution evidence and is not prepared to exclude the same from consideration, it will not straightaway convict the accused but will review the entire evidence including the circumstances appearing the case at the close before reaching a conclusion regarding the truth or falsity of the defence plea/version All the factors favouring belief in the accusation must be placed in juxtaposition to the corresponding factors favouring the plea in defence and the total effect should be estimated in relation to the questions viz. is the plea/version raised by the accused satisfactorily established by the evidence and circumstances appearing in the case? If the answer is in the affirmative, then the Court must accept the plea of the accused and act accordingly. If the answer to the question is negative, then the Court will not reject the defence plea as being false but will go a step further to find out whether or not there is yet a reasonable possibility of the defence plea/version being true. If the Court finds that although the accused has failed to establish his plea/version to the satisfaction of the Court but the plea might reasonably be true, even then the Court must accept his plea and acquit or convict him accordingly.

Crl.P.L.A.1288-L/2017
Muhammad Imtiaz Baig, etc v. The State, etc

28/09/2026

2024 S C M R 28
MUHAMMAD USMAN versus The STATE and another ---
Criminal Petition No. 1233 of 2023

Bail application dismissed as withdrawn --- Subsequent / second bail application , filing of --- Maintainability --- Fresh grounds --- Scope --- Second bail petition repeating the same grounds that were earlier taken is not competent --- Moreover , the grounds raised by an accused in a subsequent bail application which were available at the time of filing of the earlier petition could also not be treated as fresh grounds nor urged for the purposes of seeking the same relief --- If the ground on which bail has been sought subsists when a bail petition is withdrawn then such a ground can also not be taken again --- However , the exception to this rule is in the case of entitlement of bail on statutory grounds ( of delay in conclusion if trial ) .

28/09/2026

2024 CLC 1538
CR 194-12
MST. GHULAM FATIMA ETC VS PAHAR KHAN ETC
In case of pendency of some miscellaneous application, it is incumbent upon the court to first decide the application and then advert to the merits of the case. Allowing a court to decide the application for additional evidence alongwith the appeal would amount to give a premium to decide such application in negative. The joint decision of the miscellaneous application and appeal would not be even possible. The court should first decide the miscellaneous application and then pass final order/judgment qua the lis

28/09/2026

2024 YLR 2847
PLJ 2024 Cr.C. 163
SARFRAZ ALI versus STATE etc.--Crl. Misc. No. 82227-B of 2022,

Second bail petition--
----No second bail petition is maintainable and in this regard exhaustive material on this aspect is available--Yet at same end, it has also been settled by august Supreme Court of Pakistan that second bail petition can be entertained in presence of a fresh ground
--No second bail petition is maintainable even if earlier was withdrawn simpliciter or after arguing case on merits on some or full length--Even no second bail petition can be filed on basis of a ground which was available to a petitioner at time of so withdrawal but abandoned or not pressed--The only entitlement for filing of second bail petition is availability of a fresh ground i.e. a ground which was not available or in existence at time of decision of earlier application.

28/09/2026

PLJ 2024 Supreme Court (Criminal) 31
2023 SCMR 1182
HILAL KHATTAK Vs STATE and another

Lurking house - trespass or housebreaking by night after preparation for hurt , assault or wrongful restraint --- Bail , refusal of --- Facts alleged in the FIR prima facie constituted the offence of house - breaking by night after preparation for causing hurt , punishable under section 458 of the P.P.C. , instead of section 452 of the P.P.C .--- Accused and his accomplices allegedly committed house - breaking , that is , trespassed into the complainants ' house by scaling over the wall of the house , as defined in clause ( 2 ) of section 445 and that housebreaking was also committed by night , that is , after sunset and before sunrise , as defined in section 446 , P.P.C .--- Offence under section 458 of the P.P.C. being punishable with imprisonment upto fourteen years fell within the prohibitory clause of section 497 ( 1 ) of the Cr.P.C .--- Therefore , even , if the actual role of the accused was considered , his case also fell within the prohibitory clause --- Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed , leave was refused , and accused was refused bail .

28/09/2026

2023 YLR 2207
PLJ 2023 CrC 518

فوجداری مقدمات میں "واقعاتی شہادت" کے موضوع پر لاہور ہائیکورٹ کا نہایت معلوماتی فیصلہ۔
اس فیصلہ میں واقعاتی شہادت کی تعریف، رہنما اصول،قانونی تقاضاجات وغیرہ پر انتہائی عالمانہ بحث کی گئی ھے۔اور ساتھ ہی اس حوالے سے قرآنی آیات اور اعلی عدالتوں کے تقریبا تمام سابقہ فیصلہ جات کا بھی حوالہ دیا گیا ھے

"Reliable" and "Credible" evidence though both terms are sometimes used interchangeably but there is delicate difference between the two. Reliability always depends upon capacity of a witness to depose, legality of processes and competency, whereas credibility touches the character of a witness in relation to any fact in issue or relevant fact. Any violations of the legally acceptable or mandated process of collection/recording may lead to it’s becoming unreliable. Witnesses may be unreliable because of various factors such as old age, inability to remember past events, relationship with the victims and/or the complainant; any likely motives for the commission of perjury, such as financial gain, duress, past history of witnesses, lack of requisite knowledge or experience etc. Both reliability and credibility of evidence is locus in a case of direct or circumstantial evidence for a wellreasoned decision in a case by the court.
It is trite that conviction can be earned on the basis of circumstantial evidence but it must confirm to standards and principles of evidence; therefore, what implies circumstantial evidence and what are the standards of such evidence in the light of law and principles of evidence, it is highlighted for reference as under;

Circumstantial evidence means the evidence afforded not by the direct testimony of an eye-witness to the fact to be proved, out by the bearing upon that fact or other and subsidiary facts which are relied upon as inconsistent with any result other than the truth of the principal fact.

The leading rules of circumstantial evidence are the followings;

1) The facts alleged as the basis of any inference must be clearly proved and indubitably connected with the factum probandum.

2) The burden of proof is always on the party who asserts the existence of any act which infers legal accountability.

3) The corpus delicti must be clearly proved before any effect is attached to circumstances supposed to be inculpatory of a particular individual.

4) The best evidence must be adduced which the nature of the case demands.

5) Evidence ought to be received with distrust, wherever any considerable time has elapsed since the commission of alleged offence.

6) In order to justify the inference of guilt, the inculpatory facts must be incompatible with the innocence of the accused and incapable explanation upon any other reasonable hypothesis than that of his guilt.

7) If there be any reasonable doubt of the guilt of the accused, he is entitled as of right to be acquitted. [An essay on the principles of Circumstantial evidence by William Wills. T. & J. W. Johnson & company, 1857]

Circumstantial evidence is evidence of relevant facts and contrast with direct evidence; it may take the form of oral or documentary evidence including admissible hearsay or real evidence. It is no derogation of evidence to say that it is circumstantial.
Its importance lies in its potential for proving a variety of different relevant facts all of which point to same conclusion, as when it is sought to establish, that an accused committed murder, it must be proved by evidence of his preparation, motive and opportunity for its commission together with evidence of the discovery of a weapon, capable of having caused the injuries sustained by the victim, buried in the accused’s back garden and bearing his finger prints.

Circumstantial evidence, it has been said, ‘works by cumulatively, in geometrical progression, eliminating other possibilities’. It has been linked to a rope comprised of several cords: One strand of the cord might be insufficient to sustain the weight, but three strand together may be quite of sufficient strength. There may be a combination of circumstances, no one of which may raise reasonable conviction or more than a suspicion; but the three taken together may create a conclusion of guilt with as much certainty as human affair can require or admit it. The circumstances in which a fact may be said to be relevant to a fact in issue, in the sense that the existence of the former gives rise to an inference as to the existence or non-existence of the latter, are many and various. Certain types of circumstantial evidence arise so frequently that they have been referred to as ‘presumptions of fact’ or ‘provisional presumptions’ such as the presumptions of intention, guilty knowledge, continuance of life and seaworthiness etc. Another type of circumstantial evidence is evidence of facts which are so closely associated in time, place and circumstances with some transaction which is in issue and they can be said to form a part of that transaction. such facts, referred to as facts forming part of the res gestae are more conveniently can be explored in Chapter-III of Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984. Res gestae doctrine is mainly connected with the admissibility of statements of fact as evidence of the truth of their contents by way of common-law exceptions to the hearsay rule and has been described, not unfairly, in terms of a ‘collection of fact situations’ so confusing in its scope as almost to demand that a reader cease thinking before he go mad’!

The following examples of circumstantial evidence are less demanding and more typical:-

Motive: in an ordinary prosecution for murder one can prove previous acts or words of the accused to show that he entertained feelings of enmity towards the deceased, and this is evidence not merely of malicious mind with which he killed the deceased, but of the fact he killed him, it is more probable that men are killed by those that have some motive for killing them than by those who have not.

Plans and Preparatory acts: facts which tend to suggest that a person made plans or other preparations for the performance of a particular act are relevant to question whether he subsequently performed that act. Thus, evidence may be given of the purchase by an alleged murderer of poison, or as the case may be, of gun or dagger.

Capacity: Evidence of a person’s mental or physical capacity or incapacity to do a particular act has an obvious relevance to the question whether he in fact performed it. Opportunity: circumstantial evidence of opportunity or lack of opportunity is evidence of the fact that a person was present or absent at the time and place of some act allegedly performed by him, like a plea of alibi.

Identity: circumstantial evidence of identity often takes a form of expert testimony that the fingerprints 6of the accused or samples taken from his body match those discovered on or taken from some material object at the scene of the crime or the victim of the offence in question .
Identity may also be established by the evidence that the accused present and the criminal share the same name, the same physical idiosyncrasy, for example left-handedness, the same style of hand writing or same particular manner of expression in speech or writing.

Continuance: the fact that a certain act or event was taking place at one point in time may justify the inference that it was also taking place at some prior or subsequent point of time, thus evidence of the speed at which someone was driving at a particular point in time may be given to show the speed at which he was likely to have been driving a few moments earlier or later.

Failure to give evidence: although in a criminal case, absence of accused from the witness box should not be equated with guilt but an adverse inference may be drawn in cases where the uncontested or clearly established facts point so strongly to the guilt of the accused as to call for some explanation.

Failure to provide evidence: where an accused has refused without good cause to the taking from him of an intimate body sample, the court determining whether he is guilty of the offence charge may draw such inferences from the refusal as appear proper.

Standards of comparison: in cases where it is necessary to decide whether a person’s conduct meets some objective standard of behaviour, evidence of what other person would do in the same circumstances is admissible as a standard of comparison. Though this principle is more likely for civil cases yet a flow of natural behaviour in a certain circumstance can also be the subject in criminal cases on the basis of inferences or observation of the court. If a dead body is buried in the house of any person, unusual activity or change at the place of burial can easily be observed if he is not the accused. likewise foul smell element or outbreak of germs are the factors which in the ordinary course of nature can easily be monitored and natural behaviour is to report that suspicious activity to police; not reporting to police is an unusual behaviour that indicates a guilty mind.

28/09/2026

2023 S C M R 1397
2020 SCMR 1115

Guidelines for the purpose of cancellation of bail stated.
Following are the guidelines for the purpose of cancellation of bail:
(i) If the bail granting order is patently illegal, erroneous, factually incorrect and has resulted into miscarriage of justice.
(ii) That the accused has misused the concession of bail in any manner.
(iii) That accused has tried to hamper prosecution evidence by persuading/pressurizing prosecution witnesses.
(iv) That there is likelihood of abscission of the accused beyond the jurisdiction of court.
(v) That the accused has attempted to interfere with the smooth course of investigation.
(vi) That accused misused his liberty while indulging into similar offence.
(vii) That some fresh facts and material has been collected during the course of investigation which tends to establish the guilt of the accused.

28/09/2026

PLD 2023 SC 648

VVVVI.

Maintainability of second bail application on "fresh ground" of delay in trial that occurs after rejection of first bail application on same ground, explained

(ii) The 3rd proviso to Section 497, CrPC, becomes operative as and when a period of one year passes but trial in an offence not punishable with death is not concluded for no fault of the accused;

(iii) Delay in conclusion of trial that occurs for no fault of the accused in the year following the rejection of his first bail application on the statutory ground of delay, is to be considered a “fresh ground”, not earlier available to him, for entertaining his second bail application.

Sikandar Law Firm

28/09/2026

28/09/2026

28/09/2026

28/09/2026

28/09/2026

28/09/2026

28/09/2026

28/09/2026

28/09/2026

28/09/2026

Address

Telephone

Website

Alerts

Shortcuts

Share

Category

Listing takedown request