Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD ILYAS versus STATE

Section 497 (2) of the Criminal Procedure (XLV of 1860), Sections 365B and 376 of the abduction and rape convictions were not found in the FIR, but were later found in the Supplementary Statement following registration. Added to the FIR. The FIR that was implicated could not be dismissed as a false opportunity for the accused. It was alleged that he was the servant of the main accused against whom the accused was charged with committing adultery, which had not been challaned before the court and the accused was no more. The alleged abductor needed for an investigation or recovery had arrived at his home, because keeping the suspects behind bars would serve no useful purpose. The FIR did not mention any of the accused's role for the commission of the crime; the matter of further investigation, the accused was admitted in the circumstances.

Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2010

• Raja MUHAMMAD MUNIR v. Mian MUHAMMAD ASLAM 2010 YLR 1769
• MUHAMMAD ZIA-UR-REHMAN v. S.H.O., POLICE STATION ACE, KHANEWAL 2010 MLD 1770
• MUHAMMAD SHAUKAT v. State 2010 PCrLJ 1775
• MUHAMMAD NOSHAD v. State 2010 YLR 1780
• AMANULLAH KHAN v. Mst. AYESHA HAFEEZ 2010 YLR 1782
• MUHAMMAD AHMAD v. MUHAMMAD SARDAR 2010 MLD 1784
• GHULAM FATIMA v. DISTRICT JUDGE, TOBA TEK SINGH 2010 CLC 1786
• MAHMOOD alias MOODA v. State 2010 YLR 1789

All Lahore High Court Lahore judgments of 2010 →

immigration advocates from Noshki lawyer

Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes