Recently Important Criminal Law Cases in Pakistan

Here are some very important criminal law cases. These criminal law cases have been decided by the high courts of our four provinces including the supreme court of Pakistan. These case laws are very important in deciding the upcoming issue involving the same old facts.

Our judicial system works on the principle of precedents that’s why these criminal law cases are very important. The Law of bail in criminal cases is also explained in below mentioned criminal law cases.

These case laws mostly involve Pakistan Penal Code 1860. These case laws may also be known as citations on criminal cases.

These criminal law cases are as under:

Note: English gramatical structure may varry as this article includes Legal terminology and court’s expression

Some Important Criminal Law Cases

  • In case of accident only 320 PPC will attract even having no driving license.  (2000 P.Cr. L.J 230)
  • A confessional statement that is not corroborated by other independent evidence has got no value in the eye of law.  (S. 302 PPC / PLJ 2000 Quetta 1357)
  • Possession implicate of counterfeits currency notes does not constitute an offense under S. 489 B PPC   (S. 489 B PPC  / 1996 P.Cr. L. J 815)
  • Qatal does not mean murder. Qatal amount in which intention is involved qatal e khata is not qatal e amad and fell u/s 320 PPC  (PLJ 1996 Cr.c (Pesh) 733)
  • A civil suit is pending before the civil court. Bail granted.   (Ss. 468, 471, 420 PPC  /   2007 SCMR 1546, 2005 YLR 475, 2008 YLR 778, 2008 YLR 732, 2008 YLR 2953)
  • Nobody hit no crime empties were recovered. Bail allowed (u/s 324, 353, 34 PPC) (2007 P. Cr.L.J 98)
  • Two kinds of abscondence (I) in which destroy prosecution evidence (ii) abscondence to save himself from harassment of police, no evidence of destruction of evidence. Bail Allowed. Bail allowed.   (u/s 324, 430, 425, 34 PPC / PLD 2007 (Kar)127, 2009 YLR 816)
  • Accused were close relatives of the complainant and is no reasons for their false implication in case (u/s 379, 354, 452, 148, 149 PPC  / 2007 YLR 1192)
  • The material was not sent to an expert for an opinion. The material was black paper and a bottle of chemicals. Nothing on record that such material could be used for counterfeiting the currency. further inquiry allowed (S. 489-D/34 PPC  / 2009 YLR 5 Islamabad)
  • Complainant initially had nominated the accused in FIR but later on through an affidavit he had expressed has satisfied with regard to the innocence of accused and did not want to proceed with matter. Further inquiry. Bail allowed. (u/s 365/34 PPC /  2009 SCMR 448)
  • U/s 420, 468, 471 PPC and other cognate offenses both remedies are available criminal and civil but the preference was given to the civil court to decide the matter in accordance with the law. (PSC (Crl.) 1993 SC  PK 676 (a) )
  • Bail granted on compromise in non- compoundable offense. (S. 365/34 PPC  / 2009 SCMR 448)
  • 354-A PPC would be attracted where victim was stripped of her clothes and was exposed to public view in that condition.  (S.354-A PPC/2011 YLR 212)
  • Preparation of CD of scene of occurrence is not a proof of offense had been committed.  (S. 371 B 294 PPC  / 2011 YLR 353)
  • 420, 468, 471, 419 PPC (2011 YLR 1153, 2011 YLR 1236, 2011 YLR 1599)
  • Cancellation bail u/s 406 PPC  (2009 YLR 1270, 2009 P.Cr.L.J 1302 )
  • Cheque book was lost application was moved to banks manager for stop of payment. Also to civil court is pending before the civil court. Bail confirmed. (S. 489 F PPC/ 2009 YLR 28 Lah.)
  • Earlier bail application of accused was dismissed, standard of complainant was recorded by trial court who had exonerated the accused. Bail allowed (S. 395 PPC / 2007 P. Cr. L.J 1918)
  • Absconding of accused effect. Co-accused had already been acquitted by trial court. No recovery was effected. Bail cannot by refused only on ground of ascendance. (S. 392,397,413, 216-A PPC /  2009 YLR 925)
  • Bail granted. (S. 382/411 PPC / 2010 YLR 2716, 2006 YLR 2987, 2002 MLD 1437, 2001 YLR 2309)
  • Bail question contention that the case fell u/s 411 PPC. It was not coming on record as to why identification test of the petition was not held. When his name did not appear in the FIR. The non-holding of identification test of the petitioner through eye witnesses would weight in favor of his being released on bail when his name did not appear in the FIR.   (1995 P. Cr. L.J 88, 1996 PSC (crl.)SC 328)
  • Not nominated in the FIR no featured description in FIR only recovery of stolen car from the possession of the petitioner does not make the petitioner on accused of theft. (S. 381 A PPC/ 209 YLR 106 Kar.)
  • Complaint got registered FIR and nominated four accused in FIR. After two days complainant on his supplementary statement somersault and eclipsed. Two nominated accused persons and introduced three other persons to have committed the alleged offense of dacoity. The case of further inquiry. Bail accepted.   (S.392/395 PPC/ PLJ 2000 Cr.c Lah. 558 )
  • Such the case would fall under s. 411 PPC. Bail allowed. (1989 ALD 555(1), 1989 ALD 570 (1))
  • Litigation between the parties is pending before the civil court about same cause of action which is subject matter of present FIR. Petitioner has also leveled allegations against SHO. FIR was lodged after delay of four months which has not been explained. Bail confirmed (pre-arrest bail. S. 380 PPC / PLJ 2000 Lah. 193)
  • Case does not fall under prohibitory clause. Bail allowed.  (S. 419, 420, 411 PPC / PLJ 2000 Pesh. 1028)
  • Case of prima facie there is only recovery of stolen goods from the petitioner and as  (S.457, 380 PPC /  PLJ 2000 Cr.c Pesh. 401)
  • An accused of sec. 430 PPC cannot be challenged u/s 379 PPC as 379 PPC is not applicable in a case of canal diminution of water. (S. 430, 379 PPC / PLD 1997 Lah. 689)
  • Identification parade is necessary when the accused were unknown to the complainant before the occurrence.  (S. 392, 396 PPC / 1995 P.Cr. L.J 88)
  • In case of further inquiry, the bail is the right of accused. (S. 382, 170, 171, 395, 411 PPC / PLJ 2000 Lah. 711)
  • There is previous litigation between  (S. 394, 411 PPC /  PLJ 2000 Lah. 828)
  • Though the offense is not compoundable but the compromise was affected by the investigation of elders of locality at bail stage consideration.  (S. 496-A, 365-B, 380 PPC / 2009 YLR 49(a) Pesh.)
  • No evidence of buying or selling woman agent. Petition allowed. (S.371, 371-B PPC /  2009 YLR 60 Lah.)
  • Victim is 8/9 years old. He could not rush himself to police station this delay cannot be considered. Even if there is not actual penetration, entry of male organ of accused into artificial cavity between the thighs of victim amounted to penetration and canal intercourse. Bail allowed. (S. 377 PPC / PLJ 2000 Pesh. 955)
  • No evidence of enmity between the parties. No reason was shown as to falsely implication of accused person. Specific role was attributed to accused offense is punishable with 25 years. Bail cancelled.  (S. 12/7/79 , 377 PPC /  PLJ 2000 Lah. 1219)
  • Both the offenses are not compoundable however, parties have compounded out of court and do not want to prosecute the case further. Bail accepted. (S. 377 PPC , 12/7/79 H.O, PLJ 1999 Cr.c  Lah. 861, 2009 P. Cr.L.J 260, 2009 P. Cr.L.J 197, 2009 P. Cr.L.J 260)
  • Victim accompanied the accused voluntarily abduction cannot be proved and the S. 346 is bail able. Bail accepted (S. 12/7/79 H.O, 346 PPC / 2001 P. Cr. L.J 1022)
  • Free fight between parties using hatchets and latis resulting into lodging of cross cases against each other. Complainant side accused enlarged on bail. Other party is also entitled to bail (S. 324 PPC /  2010 CMR 1219)
  • Only for this that the accused says that the allegations leveled against accused are false. The criminal proceedings cannot be extinguished. (S.182/211 PPC /  PLD 1993 kar. 355)
  • Punishment is seven years and bail able offense. Bail allowed. (S.201 PPC /  2009 MLD 37)
  • Offense being punishable with five years as rule. Bail confirmed. (S. 337 A(i), 337 F (i), 504, 34 PPC / 2007 P. Cr. L.J 55, 116)
  • Pre arrest bail. Four culprits had been saddled but no specific injury had been attributed to any culprit. It was impossible to determine with any degree of certainty as to whether the present petitioner were responsible for commission of bailabe offense or the non bailable offense. Bail confirmed. (S. 337 A (i), 337 A (ii) PPC  / PLD 2007 Lah 633)
  • During investigation number of respectable was produce before I.O who stated about the innocence of petitioner. One I.O found innocent and one found guilty case of further inquiry. Allowed. (S. 324/34 PPC / 2009 MLD 88 Lah.)
  • Two kinds of abscondence. In which destroy prosecution evidence and abscondence to save himself from harassment. No destroy of evidence. Bail allowed. (S. 324, 430, 425, 34 PPC / PLD 2007 Kar. 127)
  • The role attributed to the petitioner is not repeated so the offence u/s 324 does not constitute by the petitioner. Delay in lodging the FIR is two hours while the distance between the spot and police station is only 100 steps. Bail accepted.  (S.324/147, 148,149, 504/114, 337 A (iii) PPC  2001 P. Cr.L.J 1127)
  • During police encounter nobody was injured from both sides not any vehicle was hit. Even the firing was attributed with lethal weapons like as klashin cove. So the case of further inquiry. (S. 324,353,148,149 PPC  /  1996 P. Cr.L.J 1573, 2007 P. Cr.L.J )
  • Challan submitted to anti-terrorism court challenge to. Offenses were committed on account of previous enmity and a definite motive. Hence not trilable by anti-terrorism court buy by ordinary court of competent jurisdiction. (S. 365,337,337 F(i), 148,149 PPC / PLJ 2000 Lah. 799)
  • Petitioner alleged with six injuries but only one is found on skull of victim of assault supported by medical evidence not punishable with 10 years or more no explanation regarding injuries has been offered by prosecution who is aggressor or aggressed is a material question. No more required for investigation. Bail allowed. (S.337 A (ii), 337 L (ii), 34 PPC  / PLJ 2000 Lah. 878)
  • When an accused of same offense declared innocent by police. The other co accused should be given the benefit of doubt. (S.324/34  / PLJ 1997 Pesh. 1120)
  • State counsel stated that petitioner armed with weapons in furtherance of their common intention to cause hurt, therefore at bail stage their liability cannot be segregated. Injuries attributed to petitioner also do not fall within prohibitory clause discretion of bail should be extended to them especially when they are behind bars for the last three months. Bail allowed.   (S. 337 A (i), 337 A (iii), 337 L (ii)(iii) PPC /  PLJ 2000 Lah. 1384)
  • Nature of injuries do not bring case within prohibitory clause, this appears to be case of brawl. Where both parties scuffled and injured each other opposite party has already been granted brawl. Being cross case it is natter of further inquiry as to which of party was aggressor. Bail allowed.   (S.  337 A (ii), 337 A (iii), 337 F (6), 337 D (2), 34 PPC  / PLJ 2000 Lah. 1276)
  • Free fight between parties using hatchets and lathis resulting into lodging of cross version case against each other. Difficult to ascertain at such stage as to who was aggressor. Bail allowed. (2010 SCMR 1219 / S. 324 PPC)
  • Benefit of partial compromise cannot be given to the accused without the consent of all legal heirs of the deceased. Bail rejected. (S. 497(5), 302,34,109 PPC  / PLJ 2000 Lah. 890)
  • Old age alone would not be a ground on which bail could be granted under all circumstance. Abscondence of accuses was another factor on which too bail could be refused. Empties and spent bullets were recovered from the spot. Two witnesses were supporting the prosecution version. Bail refused. (S. 302, 324, 34 PPC / PLJ 2000 Pesh. 937)
  • vicarious liability (S. 34 PPC / 1986 NLR SC 885, PLJ 2000 Pesh 793)
  • To grant of bail when prosecution has no other evidence against him and he otherwise, entitled to bail. (S. 109 PPC /  NLR 2001 454, NLR 2000 5572)
  • None of accused was nominated in FIR and no identification parade had taken place which necessary for just decision of case. Identification parade at police station has no legal role in eye of law. (S. 302,392/3, 411/34 PPC  /  PLJ 2000 Lah. 631)
  • Accused who had an already been bailed out by court, had prayed for incorporation of S.368 PPC. In bail order, contending that earlier that section was not mentioned in FIR. Thus it was not pressed in to service in main bail application. No allegation u/s 368 PPC was leveled against accused in FIR. But same was invoked much after even otherwise invocation of that section would not make much difference respecting fate of case. Accused would have been admitted bail.  (1993 P.Cr.L.J 743)
  • Victim accompanied the accused voluntarily abduction cannot be proved and the S. 346 is bail bale. Bail accepted (S. 12/7/79 H.O, 346 PPC / 2001 P. Cr. L.J 1022)
  • Not nominated in FIR. No direct evidence is available in such situation the case is of further probe. (S.302 PPC / PLJ 2000 Lah. 706)
  • Petitioner is named in FIR as empty handed. He caused no injury to deceased or any of witnesses of occurrence. Only lalkara is attributed to him makes his case of further inquiry. He is behind bars for last more than 8 months. Bail allowed. (S. 302/34 PPC  /  PLJ 2000 Lah. 960)
  • Bail grant of on ground of sickness as per report of doctor, petitioner is suffering from chronic schizophrenia to and his treatment in jail is not possible. (S. 302 PPC / PLJ 2000 Pesh. 970)
  • Only one injury to deceased was attributed to co accused. Accused was attributed only that he along with others took the deceased from his arms and legs and threw on the ground and the other accused blew the dagger on deceased. The case is one of further inquiry. Bail accepted. (S.302/109/148/149 PPC /  2001 P.Cr.L.J 1038)
  • Role attributed to petitioner that he was present at the spot armed with pistol. But no attribution of injury to the deceased or any other person. Only co accused has snatched his pistol, co accused allegedly to cause injury to deceased person. No recovery has been made from the petitioner. Question if petitioner has shared his common intention with his co accused is to be seen a time of trial. At this stage case comes into the further inquiry. Bail allowed. (S. 302/34, 109 PPC / PLJ 2000 Lah. 1416)
  • Witnesses of occasion informed police after two months of registration of FIR against some other person. Chief witness is real nephew of deceased. Further judicial confession has always been treated a very weak type of evidence. No empties were recovered from the spot. Bail granted. (S. 302/34, 109 PPC / PLJ 2000 Lah. 879)
  • Petitioner was declared innocent by the police during the investigation and with approval of DSP, his case was recommended for discharge. Petitioner did not cause any injury to deceased. Injury allegedly attributed to petitioner on person injured PW is on right lower part of thigh which according to medico legal report is declared as “ghyr jaifa badiha”  and is punishable with three years R.I question of sharing common intention by petitioner along with other co accused can only be determined by trial court after recording evidence. Prima facie case of petitioner does not fall within prohibitory clause of sec.497 Cr.P.C grant of bail in such like cases is a rule and refusal is exceptional accordingly. Bail allowed. (S. 302,324,109,179,148 PPC / PLJ 2000 Lah. 1392)
  • 148, 149 and 441-Unlawful assembly-Criminal trespass.
  • The attempt on the part of M to prevent A from using his land amounted to criminal trespass, and if he collected several persons with a view to resisting cultivation of the land by A, he and the persons so collected constituted an unlawful assembly. It must be remembered that the right of private defense is always against an act that is an offense, and on the evidence, in this case, it is impossible to hold that when A in 1947 sowed the land or attempted to exercise on it some right of ownership he was committing an offense.
  • Right of private defense
  • Right of private defense of person or property-Right of private defense is always against an act that is an offense-No no such right established in this case.
  • No question of self-defense would arise if either the prosecution case as disclosed by the witnesses or the findings of the learned Judge be accepted. The defense allegation cannot possibly be accepted in view of the inability of the defense to explain the injuries that were found on the persons of members of A’s party, but even if it be assumed that A’s party attempted to cultivate the land by force, it would make no difference in law as they were entitled to do so and M had no right to prevent them merely by reason of his having wrongfully cultivated the land six months earlier in the preceding Kharif. The attack on A’s party having been admitted, it was for the defense to prove with that degree of probability as is required by the Court when an accused person is required to prove a fact, that they were justified to kill three men and badly injured four others. P L D 1949 Lahore


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *