Find a Lawyer

MST. SURI versus HOME SECRETARY DISTRICT GILGIT

Under Section 176 and 561 the mother filed an application under Section 5 AAA, the CCPC applied to dispose of her son's alleged body, stating that the body was not his son's. And that the police had brought an unknown dead from another city while interacting with their enemy. He said that his body was not shown nor any notable person in the area has been directed to the District Magistrate / DC for the body of the petitioner's son buried in the village. To remove or to remove. And sample the dead body for DNA tests by the District Health Officer and other specialist doctors. And also the determination of the mother and brother of the alleged deceased to take samples, especially; whether or not the dead body is of the applicant's son; ? And once the report arrives, a copy of the report should be sent to the relevant police

Related judgments — Gilgit Baltistan, 2011

• ISMAIL v. State 2011 PCrLJ 1222
• GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN through Secretary Defence v. GHULAM HUSSAIN 2011 CLC 1265
• Mir HASSAN v. PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT through Chief Secretary Gilgit-Baltistan 2011 PLC(CS) 1268
• GHULAM MUHAMMAD v. COLLECTOR, SKARDU 2011 CLC 1278
• Dr. GHULAM ALI v. FEDERAL MINISTER/CHAIRMAN, NORTHERN AREAS, KA&NA DIVISION, ISLAMABAD 2011 PLC(CS) 1315
• JAN WALI v. PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT OF GILGIT-BALTISTAN 2011 PLC(CS) 1431
• PAKISTAN/PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT GILGIT-BALTISTAN, GILGIT v. KACHO FIDA MUHAMMAD 2011 CLC 1445
• SAEED FAQIR v. GOVERNMENT OF GILGIT-BALTISTAN through Secretary Transport and Tourism Affairs Gilgit-Baltistan 2011 PLC(CS) 1623

All Gilgit Baltistan judgments of 2011 →

immigration advocates from Sialkot lawyer

Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes