| S.NO. | CASE NO | NAME OF PARTIES | ADVOCATES | UNDER SECTIONS, ACTS | FIR No. | Hearing Status | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Party Side 1 | Party Side 2 | ||||||
| S.NO. | CASE NO | NAME OF PARTIES | ADVOCATES | UNDER SECTIONS, ACTS | FIR No. | Hearing Status | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Party Side 1 | Party Side 2 | ||||||
| CRIMINAL JURISDICTION Bail Application (U/S 497 Cr.P.C) | |||||||
| 1 | Cr.B.A. (Criminal Bail Application) 19/2026 | DOST MUHAMMAD VS THE STATE | Shuib Aziz() | Cr.PC-497,Gutka & Main Puri Act 2019-Section 3,Gutka & Main Puri Act 2019-Section 4,Gutka & Main Puri Act 2019-Section 8(i) | 4/2026 Hala Old |
|
|
| 2 | Cr.B.A. (Criminal Bail Application) 18/2026 | GHULAM MUSTAFA VS THE STATE | Inayat Hussain Shawal Khan (ADVO-131-SBC-MTY) | Cr.PC-497,Gutka & Main Puri Act 2019-Section 4,Gutka & Main Puri Act 2019-Section 8(i) | 22/2026 Hala |
|
|
| CRIMINAL JURISDICTION For Evidence | |||||||
| 3 | PPC 143/2025 | The State VS Imtiaz Ali and others | ADVOCATE NOT ENGAGE(ADVO-006-SBC-KHI) | PPC-147,PPC-148,PPC-149,PPC-337-A(i),PPC-337-A(iv),PPC-337-Fi,PPC-337-H,PPC-403,PPC-429,PPC-452,PPC-509 | 257/2024 Hala |
|
|
| 4 | Hd.T. (Hudood Trial) 54/2025 | The State VS Anwar shah | ADVOCATE NOT ENGAGE(ADVO-006-SBC-KHI) | Hudood Ordinances-3/4 PEHO | 221/2025 Hala |
|
|
| CRIMINAL JURISDICTION For Charge | |||||||
| 5 | PPC 173/2025 | The State VS Hadi Dino and others | Ashfaque Ali Dahri(ADVO-158-SBC-MTY) | PPC-392 | 130/2025 Hala |
|
|
| 6 | PPC 188/2025 | The State VS Baloch Khan @ Waseem Jamali and ors | ADVOCATE NOT ENGAGE(ADVO-006-SBC-KHI) | PPC-114,PPC-147,PPC-148,PPC-149,PPC-337-H,PPC-452,PPC-504,PPC-506-B | 141/2025 Saeedabad(Matiari) |
|
|
| 7 | PPC 18/2026 | The State VS Muhammad Ilyas @ Ilyas Ahmed & Others | ADVOCATE NOT ENGAGE(ADVO-006-SBC-MLR) | PPC-279 | 4/2026 Bhutto Forest |
Case called. All four accused persons are present on bail. ADPP and DC are present. Charge framed against the accused persons at Exh-02 is recorded. They have pleaded guilty and claimed not for trial at Ex---02/A to 02/D. Respectively. Accused persons have jointly submitted an application at Ex---03 for pleaded guilty. Order passed on it. Issue show cause notice to the accused persons at Ex---04, reply of show cause notice have been submitted by the accused persons at Ex---05. Order passed on it. File. Order passed on separate sheet and announced in open court at Ex---06. Accused persons are hereby convicted u/s. 243 Cr.P.C for the offences u/s.279 PPC, sentence him till rising the court and impose fine for Rs.3000/-each, In case of failure to pay the fine amount, they shall serve sentence for 03 days simple imprisonment. The accused persons are present on bail. Their bail bonds stands cancelled and sureties stands discharged. |
|
| CRIMINAL JURISDICTION Formal Cases | |||||||
| 8 | PPC 179/2025 | The State VS Rehman Dahri | ADVOCATE NOT ENGAGE(ADVO-006-SBC-MLR) | PPC-34,PPC-380,PPC-457 | 44/2025 Hala Old |
Case called. Accused Abdul Rehman is present on bail, while Juvenile accused Imdad @ Bhoro is produced by the jail authority Youthful offender/Industrial School Correctional Facility Hyderabad through video link. ADPP is present. Ossification report of Juvenile accused received from Jail authority. Detailed order passed on separate sheet. The ossification test was earlier conducted on 18.11.2025 by a Special Medical Board constituted at Civil Surgeon Service Hospital, Hyderabad, wherein the age of accused Imdad @ Bhoro was determined to be 17 years, as reflected in the age determination certificate. Since only about two and a half months have elapsed since such age determination, there is no need for a fresh ossification test. Accordingly, the previous ossification test dated 18.11.2025 is hereby accepted, and accused Imdad @ Bhoro is declared to be a juvenile offender within the meaning of the Juvenile Justice System Act, 2018. In view of the above, and as earlier directed vide order dated 11.12.2025. Let the fresh reference be sent to the Honourable Sessions Judge, Matiari, along with a copy of the ossification test report and this order, with a request to transfer the case of juvenile offender to the learned Juvenile Court having jurisdiction. Since the adult accused Rehman S/o Daood Dahri arises out of the same FIR, and to avoid conflicting judgments, reference regarding the adult accused shall also be included, as already ordered. Office is directed to prepare and dispatch the fresh reference forthwith. Put of to 18.02.206. For further proceedings. Present accused is directed to attend. Juvenile accused Imdad to be produced before this court on the next date of hearing through video link. |
|
| 9 | PPC 179/2025 | The State VS Imdad @ Bhooro Machhi | ADVOCATE NOT ENGAGE(ADVO-006-SBC-MLR) | PPC-34,PPC-380,PPC-457 | 44/2025 Hala Old |
Case called. Accused Abdul Rehman is present on bail, while Juvenile accused Imdad @ Bhoro is produced by the jail authority Youthful offender/Industrial School Correctional Facility Hyderabad through video link. ADPP is present. Ossification report of Juvenile accused received from Jail authority. Detailed order passed on separate sheet. The ossification test was earlier conducted on 18.11.2025 by a Special Medical Board constituted at Civil Surgeon Service Hospital, Hyderabad, wherein the age of accused Imdad @ Bhoro was determined to be 17 years, as reflected in the age determination certificate. Since only about two and a half months have elapsed since such age determination, there is no need for a fresh ossification test. Accordingly, the previous ossification test dated 18.11.2025 is hereby accepted, and accused Imdad @ Bhoro is declared to be a juvenile offender within the meaning of the Juvenile Justice System Act, 2018. In view of the above, and as earlier directed vide order dated 11.12.2025. Let the fresh reference be sent to the Honourable Sessions Judge, Matiari, along with a copy of the ossification test report and this order, with a request to transfer the case of juvenile offender to the learned Juvenile Court having jurisdiction. Since the adult accused Rehman S/o Daood Dahri arises out of the same FIR, and to avoid conflicting judgments, reference regarding the adult accused shall also be included, as already ordered. Office is directed to prepare and dispatch the fresh reference forthwith. Put of to 18.02.206. For further proceedings. Present accused is directed to attend. Juvenile accused Imdad to be produced before this court on the next date of hearing through video link. |
|
| CRIMINAL JURISDICTION For Serivce | |||||||
| 10 | PPC 109/2025 | The State VS Saddar Gul | Riaz Hussain Sabki(ADPP-0006-GOV-MTR) | National Highway Safety Ordinance 2000-U/S 75 NHSO,PPC-279 | 29/2025 Bhutto Forest |
|
|
| S.NO. | CASE NO | NAME OF PARTIES | ADVOCATES | UNDER SECTIONS, ACTS | Hearing Status | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Party Side 1 | Party Side 2 | ||||||
| FAMILY JURISDICTION For Service | |||||||
| 1 | G.W. (G&W Cases) 14/2025 | Kandero Sheedi VS The General Public at Large | Arif Ali Shah(ADVO-185-SBC-MTY) | The Guardian and Wards Act, 1890-Application U/S 7 & 10 of Guardian & Ward Act | |||
| 2 | G.W. (G&W Cases) 1/2026 | Abdul Aleem Buriro VS General Public large & Others | ADVOCATE NOT ENGAGE(ADVO-006-SBC-MLR) | The Guardian and Wards Act, 1890-U/S 29 Guardian and wards Act 1890 for permission of sale | |||
| 3 | G.W. (G&W Cases) 2/2026 | Mst. Arbi VS Ghulam Hussain & others | Arif Ali Shah(ADVO-185-SBC-MTY) | The Guardian and Wards Act, 1890-Application U/S 7 & 10 of Guardian & Ward Act,The Guardian and Wards Act, 1890-U/S 29 Guardian and wards Act 1890 for permission of sale | |||
| 4 | G&W. Appl. (G&W Applications) 15/2025 | MST. ZUBAIDA KHASKHELI VS MST. SHAHZADI AND ORS | Arif Ali Shah(ADVO-185-SBC-MTY) | The Guardian and Wards Act, 1890-U/S 10,The Guardian and Wards Act, 1890-U/S 29 Guardian and wards Act 1890 for permission of sale,The Guardian and Wards Act, 1890-U/S 7 | |||
| FAMILY JURISDICTION For Service | |||||||
| 5 | F.S. (Family Suits) 3/2026 | Humaira Naz Arain VS Malik Abdul Rafeh | ADVOCATE NOT ENGAGE(ADVO-006-SBC-KHI) | Family Suit-Suit for Dissolution of Marriage by way of Khula | |||
| FAMILY JURISDICTION For W/S/Objections/C.A. | |||||||
| 6 | F.S. (Family Suits) 1/2026 | Ajmal Rafique VS Mst. Fazeela | ADVOCATE NOT ENGAGE(ADVO-006-SBC-MLR) | Family Suit-Restitution of Conjugal Rights | |||
| FAMILY JURISDICTION Pre-Trial | |||||||
| 7 | F.S. (Family Suits) 33/2025 | MST NAILA VS ATIF | Asif Ali (ADVO-288-SBC-MTY) | Family Suit-Suit for Maintenance ,Family Suit-Suit for Recovery of Dowry Article | |||