Find a Lawyer

EJAZ AHMAD TARAR versus STATE

Sections 498 and 345 of the Penal Code (XLV of 1860), section 395/412 robbers, obtaining property in the commission of an arrest warrant before a robbery ad interim, confirming the compromise between the parties in a contract to compensate the complainant. I was told that they have no objection to the interim pre-arrest bail confirmation of the accused persons and if the loss to them is done by the accused then the accused has accepted the complainant's offer and the complainant. Paid cash after which he will not prosecute them. Both sides said they had no objection to the confirmation of bail prior to the arrest and that the complainant agreed not to pursue the matter to the extent of the defendant's interim bail before the suspect's arrest was confirmed.

Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2012

• Mst. ZAHIDA PERVEEN v. Mst. PERVEEN AKHTAR 2012 CLC 1497
• MUHAMMAD IMRAN v. State 2012 MLD 1499
• Mst. SHAMSHAD BIBI v. State 2012 YLR 1502
• MUHAMMAD NADEEM v. State 2012 PCrLJ 1502
• MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN v. GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB 2012 PLC(CS) 1508
• MUHAMMAD SHAFIQUE v. State 2012 PCrLJ 1517
• MUHAMMAD NAZIR v. State 2012 MLD 1519
• PEER BAKHSH alias ZULFIQAR alias BHUTTO v. State 2012 YLR 1519

All Lahore High Court Lahore judgments of 2012 →

immigration advocates contact from Sadiqabad lawyer

Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes