Find a Lawyer

ABDUL GHAFFAR versus STATE

Section 997 Crimes Against Property (Enforcement Hoodlood) Ordinance (VI 1979), Section 17 (3) Harassment Bail, the grant of a co-accused was acquitted by the trial court after the trial, because the witnesses were involved in the defendant's prosecution case. The case was not supported. Such cases had come under further scrutiny and there was no possibility that they would not be likely to commit any crime on the same evidence if the accused's fugitive would not be on his way for bail. If otherwise they are found to be eligible for bail. The trial of this crime could not be settled after the prosecution had added evidence, if a person had a political affiliation and owned his own vehicle, he could be convicted of robbery throughout the day.

Related judgments — Karachi High Court Sindh, 2011

• ACHAR v. State 2011 YLR 1640
• TRADING CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN (PVT.) LTD. v. UNIVERSAL NAVIGATION (PTE.) LTD. 2011 CLD 1642
• SHAMAN MAL v. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER IRRIGATION 2011 MLD 1644
• ASAD ULLAH KHAN v. State 2011 YLR 1648
• MUHAMMAD SALEEM v. State 2011 YLR 1651
• MAMTAZ MEMON v. GOVERNMENT OF SINDH 2011 YLR 1654
• MUHAMMAD ATIF v. State 2011 YLR 1655
• APOLLO TEXTILE MILLS LTD. v. SONERI BANK LIMITED 2011 CLD 1655

All Karachi High Court Sindh judgments of 2011 →

registration advocate from Akhora Khattak lawyer

Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes