Find a Lawyer

QAMAR ALIAS MITHO versus STATE

Section 497 (2) of the Criminal Procedure (XLV of 1860), section 302/109/34 Qatil Amad, interim bail, accused of failing to be named in the FIR of further investigations, his name first appeared in the case. More than a month after the incident, two persons designated him an unidentified offender, saying that two persons were not mentioned in the FIR because there were no tests to identify the witnesses for the eyewitnesses to the alleged incident. Were made (mention of unknown offender) in the FIR) No special or special investigation of any person was attributed to the unknown offender (accused) in the FIR exclusively The motive in which the accused was charged before the named accused had nothing to do with the motive. An arrest warrant calls for further investigation into the crime against him

Related judgments — Supreme Court, 2012

• ABDUL KARIM v. Haji NOOR BADSHAH 2012 SCMR 212
• GHAZANFAR ALI @ PAPPU v. State 2012 SCMR 215
• Mst. SARWAR JAN v. MUKHTAR AHMAD 2012 PLD 217
• STATE BANK OF PAKISTAN through Governor v. IMTIAZ ALI KHAN 2012 PLC(CS) 218
• FIAQAT HUSSAIN v. FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Planning and Development Division, Islamabad 2012 PLD 224
• NON-TRANSPARENT PROCEDURE OF PURCHASE OF 150 LOCOMOTIVES BY MINISTRY OF RAILWAYS RESULTANTLY CAUSING 2012 SCMR 226
• Mst. INAYATAN KHATOON v. MUHAMMAD RAMZAN 2012 SCMR 229
• SUO MOTU CASE NO. 6 OF 2010 v. (SUO MOTU ACTION REGARDING PAYMENT OF PRESCRIBED MINIMUM WAGES TO THE SECURITY GUARDS WORKING IN PTC 2012 PLC 232

All Supreme Court judgments of 2012 →

top civil advocates from Lalshanra lawyer

Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes