Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD SHAFEEQ versus STATE

Section 497 (2) of the Criminal Procedure (XLV of 1860), Section 395/412 Duty, Receiving stolen property in a robbery bail, the grant of further investigation from the accused was not designated in the FIR and it In his statement 26 days after appearing in the supplementary statement, he stated that his suspect and others were not charged in any of the identity tests when they were accused and that only the fact of the matter could be further investigated. Sufficient to bring when the presence of the accused did not impede the acceptance of his bail otherwise he would be presented to the court if he deserved the same inquiry. He was accused of no ex-offender. Bail was allowed under the circumstances

Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2012

• Mst. RASHEEDAN BIBI v. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE 2012 CLC 784
• MUHAMMAD ALI v. MUHAMMAD SHAHID 2012 PCrLJ 789
• MUHAMMAD MATTA v. MUHAMMAD LATIF 2012 YLR 791
• CHAUDHRY SUGAR MILLS LTD. v. GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB 2012 PTD 798
• AADUT v. NOOR AHMAD 2012 MLD 802
• MUHAMMAD NASIR IQBAL v. State 2012 PCrLJ 804
• ZAFAR ALI v. REGISTRAR COOPERATIVES PUNJAB, LAHORE 2012 CLC 805
• IBRAR HUSSAIN v. State 2012 YLR 805

All Lahore High Court Lahore judgments of 2012 →

law firms from Neelam lawyer

Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes