Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD ESSA RIND versus STATE

Section 497 of the Contempt Rule (XLV of 1860), Section 2302 (l) Qatil Im Bell, a grant of immunity, came on the record that two witnesses had apologized for the crime being committed, based on this Was charged. Evidence, which has already come on the record, a case of bail has come out. And the mere arrest of the State Counsel proved that the evidence given by these two witnesses was the result of their victory by the accused. And that the rifle was also recovered from his custody as eyewitness dismissed in favor of the accused because the recovery of the rifle from his custody had been a minor matter but not because the ballistic report was against the accused. Bail was extended, conditions

Related judgments — Karachi High Court Sindh, 2011

• MUHAMMAD ATHER HAFEEZ KHAN v. SSANGYONG AND USMANI JV 2011 YLR 317
• MUHAMMAD AQIB SHAHID v. CHIEF OF THE NAVAL STAFF, NAVAL HEADQUARTERS, ISLAMABAD 2011 PLC(CS) 321
• ARABTEC PAKISTAN (PVT.) LTD. v. ENSHAANLC DEVELOPMENTS (PVT.) LTD. 2011 CLC 323
• YOUSIF KHAN v. State 2011 YLR 329
• E.O.B.I. OFFICERS\' ASSOCIATION OF PAKISTAN v. EMPLOYEES\' OLD AGE BENEFITS INSTITUTION (EOBI) 2011 PLC 336
• SHAHBAZ v. State 2011 PCrLJ 338
• RAMOON alias RAMZAN v. State 2011 MLD 340
• NELOFAR SAQIB v. SAIBAN BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS 2011 CLD 341

All Karachi High Court Sindh judgments of 2011 →

law websites from Kunjah lawyer

Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes