Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD UMAR KHAN versus STATE

Section 497 (2) of the Conduct Rule (XLV of 1860), Section 381 guarantees theft of a car or other motor vehicle, any further investigation grant FIR mentions any source or material for linking the commission to the accused and co-accused. Was not done In addition to the crime which the complainant found out that the accused and the co-accused had stolen his vehicle, the accused remained on physical remand, but nothing was recovered from it. Was gone while the other was declared innocent by the investigator. During the course of the investigation, the officer with whom the accused was charged did not fall under the prohibited clause of section 497; CCCP brought such factors into the investigation area of the accused and was released on bail.

Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2012

• MUHAMMAD NAWAZ v. State 2012 YLR 2699
• ARSHAD MEHMOOD HALEEM v. State 2012 YLR 2720
• MUHAMMAD YOUSAF KHAN v. State 2012 YLR 2725
• MUHAMMAD AKRAM v. MADHOO LAL HUSSAIN 2012 YLR 2734
• MEHBOOB AHMAD KHAN v. State 2012 YLR 2745
• MANZOOR AHMAD v. DEPUTY DISTRICT OFFICER (R) ADMINISTRATOR TMA DUNYAPUR DISTRICT LODHRAN 2012 YLR 2751
• MUHAMMAD RAMZAN v. State 2012 YLR 2758
• ANJUM alias ANJA v. State 2012 YLR 2764

All Lahore High Court Lahore judgments of 2012 →

famous high court advocate from New Saeedabad lawyer

Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes