Find a Lawyer

SHAHID HUSSAIN ALIAS MU LTANI versus STATE

Section 497 (2) of the Criminal Procedure (XLV of 1860), Section 302/392/411/34 Qatil amd, burglary, theft of stolen property and joint intent to obtain confidentiality, further investigation case approval Extra judicial confession of joint acquittal The applicable applicant was not named in the FIR and was designated by the complainant in the supplemental statement Extra judicial confession was a joint confession and even the alleged retrieval was a joint retrieval, thus The identity of the co-accused was not known. Earlier in the High Court case, arrest warrant against the accused was filed for pre-arrest bail.

Related judgments — Supreme Court, 2011

• MUHAMMAD YOUNAS v. MUHAMMAD TUFAIL 2011 SCMR 1657
• INSPECTOR-GENERAL OF POLICE, PUNJAB, LAHORE v. MUHAMMAD ZAMAN 2011 SCMR 1663
• HABIBULLAH v. State 2011 SCMR 1665
• MUHAMMAD HANIF v. COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX 2011 SCMR 1672
• Mst. NADIA MALIK v. MAKKI CHEMICAL INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD. 2011 SCMR 1675
• SAEED AHMAD v. State 2011 SCMR 1686
• AL-JEHAD TRUST v. LAHORE HIGH COURT through Registrar 2011 SCMR 1688
• RIAZ JAFAR NATIQ v. MUHAMMAD NADEEM DAR 2011 SCMR 1708

All Supreme Court judgments of 2011 →

top advocates from Khushab lawyer

Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes