Find a Lawyer

LALU ALIAS BADARUDDIN versus STATE

Section 497 (2) Code of Conduct (XLV of 1860), Section 302/337 H (ii) / 457/511 Convicted, injured by speeding or negligent driving, domestic solicitation or overnight break from home, etc. Approval of Investigation Case Delay at the end of the trial The principle of ocular and medical evidence inconsistency was not assigned any special role to the accused and was not consistent with the eye and medical evidence Contrary to the statement under Section 164, CRP The two prosecution witnesses were already acquitted. Four years had passed since the bail by the High Court but the trial did not proceed. In the case, further investigation is needed and it is a matter of difficulty which allowed bail in the circumstances.

Related judgments — Karachi High Court Sindh, 2011

• MUHAMMAD AKRAM KHAN v. PROVINCE OF SINDH through Chief Secretary, Services, General Administration and Coordination Departm 2011 PLC(CS) 181
• UMAIR AHMED v. MUHAMMAD JAMEEL 2011 YLR 182
• Syed GHULAM HYDER SHAH alias UMAZ SHAH v. Mst. BIBI AMIRUNNISSA 2011 PLD 183
• CITY DISTRICT GOVERNMENT, KARACHI through its District Coordination Officer v. Mrs. YASMIN 2011 CLC 183
• NAEEM-UR-REHMAN KHAN NIAZI v. State 2011 PCrLJ 187
• UBEDULLAH v. State 2011 YLR 188
• MUHAMMAD TARIQ SIDDIQUI v. NASIR ALI 2011 CLC 191
• ABDUL HAMEED CHANNA v. FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Ministry of Education, Islamabad 2011 PLC(CS) 192

All Karachi High Court Sindh judgments of 2011 →

ask a advocate free from Kotla lawyer

Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes