Find a Lawyer

SUHAIL ASHRAF versus STATE

Section 497 (2) of the Conduct Rule (XLV of 1860), section 302/34 Qatil Ahmed bail, no further investigation was witnessed because no one was killing witnesses of the accused in their statements under section 164. Had seen That they found the victim was on a motorcycle with the accused and the co-accused could not have recovered the crime weapon from the accused during the police investigation or collected any circumstantial evidence against him. The accused, 7, was in jail since 2007 and only the complainant was examined, who was also not involved in presenting the accused's lawyer for further investigation, the accused was admitted on bail in the circumstances.

Related judgments — Karachi High Court Sindh, 2011

• Mirza GHULAM MUJTABA v. KASB BANK LIMITED 2011 CLD 1072
• GHULAM SHABBIR v. State 2011 YLR 1074
• FAISALABAD OIL REFINERY (PVT.) LTD. v. GOLDEN ALPINE MARITIME PTE LTD. 2011 CLC 1074
• SHAH FAISAL v. State 2011 MLD 1075
• 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
• UMED ALI v. State 2011 MLD 1091

All Karachi High Court Sindh judgments of 2011 →

pakistani advocates Dandot lawyer

Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes