Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD NAEEM versus STATE

The dishonesty of the Section 497 Contempt Code (XLV of 1860), the dishonesty of the Section 489F check guarantee, was behind bars for the past six months and was a former offender under which the prohibition contained in Section 497 (1) did not. was done. , There is no bar to the involvement of the accused in CR PC Lindsey or other matters of this nature, in the case of extension of the bail of the accused, in case of extension of bail, the accused was admitted in bail,

Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2011

• Mst. SATTARAN BEGUM v. DISTRICT JUDGE, KHANEWAL 2011 YLR 2254
• MUGHAL-E-AZAM BANQUET COMPLEX v. FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary 2011 PTD 2260
• FOUJI CEMENT COMPANY LTD. v. HAKAS (PVT.) LTD. 2011 YLR 2260
• Malik SARFRAZ KHAN v. SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB MINES AND MINERAL DEPARTMENT 2011 YLR 2268
• ABDUL JALIL v. State 2011 YLR 2276
• AKRAM MASIH v. State 2011 YLR 2279
• KHALID MAHMOOD v. STATION HOUSE OFFICER, POLICE STATION SADDAR JARANWALA, DISTRICT FAISALABAD 2011 YLR 2284
• NAZIR v. MUHAMMAD NAWAZ 2011 YLR 2288

All Lahore High Court Lahore judgments of 2011 →

solicitors from Phalia lawyer

Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes