Considerations

Court had to look into certain facts with regard to quantum of amount to be forfeited and a balance had to be kept in between "undue leniency" and "undue severity"

Petitioner stood surety for the accused persons in the name of God and financial position of surety was relevant factor for determination of quantum of amount to be forfeited

High Court reduced the amount of surety accordingly. [Paras. 2, 5, 6 & 9 of the judgment]

If a minor is old enough to form an intelligent preference, the court can consider his/her preference while deciding custody of minor.

Court while deciding bail application would consider allegations made in FIR; statements recorded under S.161, Cr.P.C.; nature and gravity of charge; other incriminating material against accused and legal pleas raised by the accused.

Court, while deciding bail application would consider facts narrated in FIR; statements recorded under S. 161, Cr.P.C.; other incriminating material against accused; nature and gravity of charge and pleas raised by accused.

Court, while deciding bail application would consider allegations made in FIR; statements recorded under S. 161, Cr.P.C.; other incriminating material against accused; nature and gravity of charge and pleas raised by the accused.

Court, while deciding bail application would consider allegations levelled in FIR; statements recorded under S. 161, Cr.P.C.; nature and gravity of charge; other incriminating material against accused and pleas raised by accused in defence.

Considerations for post arrest bail were altogether different from those, needed for bail before arrest, but in a situation, where circumstances almost remained unchanged, even after dismissal of application for bail before arrest and resultant arrest of accused, the observations previously recorded on merits might not lose its efficacy and relevance.

Authorities were required to maintain existing boundaries, territorial unity, geographical contiguity and compactness, uniform and equal distribution of population, facility of communications and public convenience

Such requirements were basic considerations and as far as possible must be followed by de-limitation officer

Where such requirements were not strictly followed, it should be through reasoned order and de-limitation officer should not have acted in mala fide or in fanciful and haphazardly manner

While passing order in question, authorities did not keep in mind the foremost principle of de-limitation including equal distribution of population, geographical compactness, hence, the provisions of S.8 of Punjab Local Government Act, 2013, R. 4 of Punjab Local Government (De-limitation) Rules, 2013 and guidelines had been violated

High Court set aside de-limitation order and directed the authorities to re-decide the matter afresh

Petition was allowed accordingly.

Individual whose life, liberty or property, were in legal jeopardy, had a vested legal right to confront the evidence against him

Status of statement of the deceased then injured would not be more than a statement under S.161, Cr.P.C., and not a dying declaration

Dying declaration or a statement of a person without the test of cross-examination, was weak kind of evidence, and its credibility depended upon the authenticity of the record; and the circumstances under which it was recorded

Dying declaration like the statement of an interested witness, required close scrutiny; and was not to be believed merely for the reason that dying person was not expected to tell a lie.

To find out truth or falsity of a dying declaration, a case was generally considered in all its physical environments and circumstances and it was necessary to find out as to how far the evidence or its different parts fit in with the circumstances; and possibility that could safely be deduced in a particular case

In order to pass the test of reliability, a dying declaration had to be subjected to very close scrutiny, keeping in view the fact that such statements were made in the absence of an accused; who had no opportunity of testing the veracity of the statement by cross-examination

In examining the intrinsic worth of dying declaration, the inherent consistency, genuineness and truth of the statement in the context of surrounding circumstances, the fact that the deceased was not tortured or motivated by hate or other mercenary motives to give an untrue account, or substitute, or falsely implicate persons in the crime, its credibility according to normal human standards; and the absence of any inherent infirmity or weakness therein, all had to be apprised

In examining its extrinsic value, on appraisal of surrounding circumstances i.e. that the deceased was in a fit condition to make the statement, would also had to be carefully examined.

Order, granting or refusing bail, must reflect perfect balance between the conflicting interests; viz, sanctity of individual's liberty and the interest of the society

While granting or refusing bail, two conflicting interests, namely the requirement of shielding the society from the hazards of those committing crimes and potentiality of repeating the same crime while on bail; and the absolute adherence of fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence regarding presumption of innocence of an accused until he was found guilty.

While considering the bail matter of an accused involved in a non-bailable offence, if there appeared reasonable grounds for believing that he was guilty of an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life, he would not be released on bail, unless case was covered by any of the provisions of subsection (1) of S.497, Cr.P.C.

Bail in case of commission of non-bailable offences and particularly falling in the prohibitory clause of S.497(1), Cr.P.C., was not to be granted as a matter of course with a simple sentence that it was a case of further inquiry, without keeping in view the entire provisions of S.497, Cr.P.C.

If bail was to be granted to every accused, even if, charged with a non-bailable offence without considering the merits of the case, merely on the plea that every accused was presumed to be innocent, unless proved otherwise, the very concept and purpose of drawing a line between bailable and non-bailable offences; and various kinds of punishments, would stand frustrated

Discretion vested in the court, was to be exercised in a judicial fashion, in the light of the facts of each case

Where the prosecution would collect enough material to constitute reasonable grounds connecting accused with the alleged offence, courts were always slow to accede to the request for bail.

Court while considering the question for grant of bail to accused was to avoid to discuss at length the main aspects of the prosecution case, as such findings and observations of the court would seriously affect the merits of case of other party; and impact of influence upon Trial Court could not be ruled out

Deeper appreciation of evidence, in circumstances, could not be gone into at bail stage, and tentative assessment of the available evidence be made only to find out as to whether accused was, prima facie, connected with offence or not.

Considerations for cancellation of bail were different from the considerations for the grant of bail; and in the absence of strong and exceptional grounds warranting interference, bail earlier granted to accused could not be cancelled.

complainant contended that testimony of three prosecution witnesses had been recorded in Trial Court, therefore, bail should be declined to accused

Validity

Such consideration was not valid nor was it an absolute rule that where evidence had been recorded, accused could not be enlarged on bail

Where liberty of citizen was involved such conjectural considerations could not be a basis for declining bail

Bail was allowed accordingly.

Jurisdiction of Federal Shariat Court was restricted to consideration of repugnancy of a law only in light of Injunctions of Islam as contained in the Holy Qur'an and Sunnah of the Holy Prophet

Federal Shariat Court was not at all authorized to decide Shariat petitions in the light of juristic opinions of Fuqaha.

Main consideration for rejection of plaint under O.VII, R.11, C.P.C. was the contents of plaint keeping in view the peculiar facts of the case

Some undisputed or admitted material, any documents available, which according to the nature of the averments of the plaint, could be considered as part of plaint, could also be considered

In the present case, on appreciation of the averments of the plaint and documents annexed with it, it could not be concluded that the plaintiffs had no cause of action, or the suit was barred by law

Plaintiffs had claimed multiple remedies in their prayer clause

If any one of the prayer could not be granted, that would not mean that the suit would be treated barred for all other claimed remedies

Under the provisions of O.VII, R.11, C.P.C. plaint could only be rejected, if all the reliefs claimed, were barred under the law

If some of the reliefs claimed were available the plaint could not be rejected, because under the codal provisions, there was no concept of piecemeal rejection of the plaint

Parties in the case were at variance on question of fact, which could not be resolved without recording the evidence

Rejection of plaint, in such state of affairs, was not justified

Trial Court was equipped with the powers to the effect that after framing issues, the plaint could be disposed of partly or in toto by deciding the purely legal issues

Rejection of plaint was not justified without framing issues or providing opportunity of hearing, and leading evidence to the parties in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case

Impugned judgment of High Court, not suffering from any legal infirmity, was upheld.

Plaintiff wife (married when she was minor) filed suit for dissolution of marriage against defendant (husband) on the ground of option of puberty, cruelty and in the alternative on the ground of 'Khula'

Family Court passed a decree for dissolution of marriage on ground of 'Khula' without any consideration

Validity

If a wife would fail to prove all the grounds taken by her in the plaint for the dissolution of marriage, even then a decree on the basis of 'Khula' could be passed in her favour, keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case

Record, in the present case, had proved that the plaintiff could not prove the factum of cruelty, but had averred in the plaint that she could not live with the defendant at any cost

Plaintiff had also levelled certain allegations against the character of the defendant

Keeping in view the difference of age between spouses, the court below had rightly found that the plaintiff had developed a fixed aversion against the defendant; and that it was impossible for them to live a happy life within the limits ordained by Allah and rightly passed a decree for dissolution of marriage on ground of 'Khula'

When a tie of marriage was annulled on the ground of 'Khula', the wife had to pay the husband full or part of the consideration, she had received from her husband at the time of the contract of marriage as determined by the court

Plaintiff in the present case had admitted that dower amounting Rs.1,82,781 was fixed at the time of marriage which was paid to her in shape of ornaments; she however, averred that said amount was snatched away by the defendant which was in his possession

Defendant had refuted the claim of plaintiff and contended that said ornaments were still in her possession

Burden of proof of said fact was upon the plaintiff, but she failed to produce the cogent, sufficient and reliable evidence to discharge the burden of proof

Evidence of the plaintiff was vague and fictitious which could not be relied upon

Held, that the ornaments were still in possession of plaintiff which had to be returned to the defendant

Impugned decision and decree was set aside to the extent that the defendant was entitled to receive Rs.1,82,781 the dower amount as consideration for 'Khula'

Order accordingly

[2004 CLC 1186 overruled].

Grant or denial of bail was regulated, to a large extent, by the facts and circumstances of each particular case but at the same time, right to bail was not to be denied merely because of the sentiments of the community against the accused.

Seriousness of the charge was one of the relevant considerations while considering bail application but that was not the only test or the factor

Punishment that could be imposed after trial and conviction was another factor that was required to be taken note of.