Find a Lawyer

ASIF versus STATE

Section 497 (2) of the Criminal Procedure (XLV of 1860), Section 392/34 Robbery Compensation, Further Investigation Grant The name of the accused was not presented to the FIR No identification parade was made before the magistrate as per The mobile phone was recovered from the accused was not mentioned, either in the FIR or in the recovery memo the complainant's mobile phone SIM was not found by the accused, according to the FIR from the accused Was taken away or his co-accused said that the facts had been made. In the case of further inquiry under Section 497 (2), the CCP accused was admitted on bail, under the circumstances.

Related judgments — Karachi High Court Sindh, 2012

• Dr. MUHAMMAD MUZZAFFAR v. FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN MINISTRY OF PORT AND SHIPPING 2012 PLC(CS) 205
• MUHAMMAD SALMAN AHMED SIDDIQUI v. State 2012 YLR 206
• Mrs. INGRID PEREIRA v. VITH ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, KARACHI SOUTH 2012 PLD 208
• ABDUL RASHEED v. State 2012 PCrLJ 210
• IMAM BUX alias AMOO v. State 2012 PLD 212
• NIB BANK LTD. v. SHADMAN ELECTRONIC INDUSTRY (PVT.) LTD. 2012 CLD 212
• HARIS RANA v. Mst. SARWAT AKHTAR 2012 MLD 213
• GUL MUHAMMAD v. KAIMUDDIN 2012 YLR 218

All Karachi High Court Sindh judgments of 2012 →

online advocate from Swat lawyer

Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes