Find a Lawyer

FAZAL UR REHMAN versus STATE

The section 497 Prevention Code (XLV of 1860), Section 392/34 Dacoity Guarantee, stated in the defendant's grant that he was less than 17 years of age in his bail plea. The question is, with regard to the age of the accused, the court can only be decided in accordance with Section 7 of the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance; the 2000 rules of the accused's lawyer were that the FIR was filed after a delay of four days. And that the report submitted under section 173 did not show any recovery. The shortage deserves a fair amount of weight, the defendant was entitled to a discount on bail, CCCC said

Related judgments — Karachi High Court Sindh, 2012

• Dr. AHMED ALI v. Mst. SHAHANA YOUNUS 2012 MLD 1190
• MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE v. State 2012 YLR 1191
• PAKISTAN INDUSTRIAL CREDIT AND INVESTMENT CORPORATION LTD. v. KHAIRPUR SUGAR MILLS LIMITED 2012 CLD 1192
• Haji MUHAMMAD SAEED v. Mst. BANO BEGUM 2012 CLC 1195
• GHULAM SHABBIR v. State 2012 YLR 1199
• MUZAFAR AHMED v. IRSHAD AHMED CHAUDHARY 2012 CLC 1202
• SAMIULLAH NAREJO v. FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary Ministry of Defence, Rawalpindi 2012 PLC(CS) 1205
• Syed ALI QASIM GILLANI v. State 2012 YLR 1206

All Karachi High Court Sindh judgments of 2012 →

property advocate from Tarnol lawyer

Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes