Find a Lawyer

ABDUL HAFEEZ versus STATE

Section 497 (2) of the Code of Conduct (XLV of 1860), section 380/457/436/34, theft of a dwelling house, joint intent to guarantee, further investigation grant all the contents of the house and it was not clear whether the above. How the items were moved from home to residence The accused could not recover anything from the records which had been filed in the FIR in which the present complainant of the complainant was shown as an accused. And the current accused was also a witness to the FIR that had not yet been recorded on what happened with a large number of stolen articles / goods. According to the provisions of section 497 (2) of the case, the CCP accused was admitted for bail, accordingly.

Related judgments — Karachi High Court Sindh, 2012

• AVARI HOTELS LIMITED v. FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Information and Broadcasting 2012 CLD 1330
• FAREED ALAM v. SHIRAZ AFZAL MALIK 2012 MLD 1334
• HAYAT GHANI v. State 2012 YLR 1336
• NAVEED JAN BALOCH v. FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Ministry of Commerce 2012 CLD 1339
• BAKSHOO v. State 2012 PCrLJ 1342
• AKMAL v. State 2012 YLR 1344
• GHULAM MUHIYUDDIN alias GAMBOO v. State 2012 MLD 1351
• ATTA MUHAMMAD v. State 2012 YLR 1353

All Karachi High Court Sindh judgments of 2012 →

tax advocates from Kallur Kot lawyer

Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes