Find a Lawyer

SYED HAKIM ALI SHAH versus STATE

According to Section 497 (2) Conduct Rule (XLV of 1860), Sections 302, 114 and 34 Qatil Ahmed bail, the FIR was vacant hand of further investigation and no active role was assigned to the accused. Can be dealt with appropriately. Since the prosecution's evidence was filed by the trial court, only Temple was charged, which was after the commission of the crime against the accused. And it remains to be seen whether the accused was somehow linked to the commission of the crime. For which further inquiry was sought under section (2) of section 497, the CCP accused was admitted on bail, under the circumstances.

Related judgments — Karachi High Court Sindh, 2011

• HAKIM ALI v. State 2011 MLD 376
• PIR BUX v. State 2011 PCrLJ 380
• Mst. SAIQA v. PROVINCIAL POLICE OFFICER, SINDH 2011 CLC 381
• Mst. SHADAB PERVEZ v. Mst. AMBREEN PERVEZ 2011 PLD 382
• ZURASH INDUSTRIES (PVT.) LTD. v. FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Ministry of Interior, Islamabad 2011 PLD 385
• MUHAMMAD SHARIF v. State 2011 MLD 389
• MUHAMMAD ASHRAF v. MUHAMMAD AKBAR 2011 YLR 390
• ALLIED BANK LIMITED v. MUSLIM CO1TON MILLS PRIVATE LIMITED 2011 CLD 393

All Karachi High Court Sindh judgments of 2011 →

inheritance advocates near Gaggo Mandi lawyer

Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes