Find a Lawyer

UMED ALI versus STATE

No clear allegations were made against the accused accused of granting Section 497 (2) Criminal Procedure (XLV of 1860), sections 302, 365, 452 and 395 convictions AMD, kidnapping, home abuse, robbery bail, and further investigation. He was accompanied by one of the other accomplices, who had kidnapped a man to kill him, but there was no material available on record to confirm this.

Related judgments — Karachi High Court Sindh, 2011

• SUHAIL ASHRAF v. State 2011 MLD 1077
• PETROMARK (PRIVATE) LIMITED v. REGISTRAR OF TRADE MARKS 2011 CLD 1082
• PAKISTAN INDUSTRIES (PVT.) LIMITED v. KARACHI PORT TRUST through Board of Trustees 2011 CLC 1086
• Haji MUHAMMAD IQBAL v. MUHAMMAD SAEED 2011 PCrLJ 1086
• ALI MUHAMMAD v. State 2011 YLR 1091
• ABU SALEH v. LEARNED IIND CIVIL JUDGE AND JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, BADIN 2011 YLR 1095
• ADDITIONAL REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES v. KARIM SILK MILLS LIMITED 2011 CLD 1095
• FINANCIAL BROADCASTING SERVICES (PVT.) LIMITED v. PAKISTAN ELECTRONIC MEDIA REGULATORY AUTHORITY (SINDH REGION) 2011 CLC 1097

All Karachi High Court Sindh judgments of 2011 →

top civil advocates from Bolan lawyer

Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes