Find a Lawyer

SHAKEEL versus STATE

Further investigation into the bail was made in the FIR under Section 497 (2) of the Criminal Procedure (XLV of 1860), section 324/379/335/336/411 of the murder and theft, but the accused was named Only the complainant was telephoned and no overt act was taken. The accused did not injure anyone nor was mentioned in the FIR due to any other injury. The accused was involved in this case through a supplementary statement before the challan was presented before the trial court and the accused no longer needed any recovery or investigation. Ltd was imported and exported only weapon was a crime suspect is behind the bars since his arrest in 2008 and 11 times more prisoners in jail. There is no co-accused for any useful purpose, nor did the accused cut off the complainant's language

Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2010

• MUHAMMAD AFZAL v. GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB, LAHORE through Chief Secretary 2010 YLR 664
• BANK OF PUNJAB v. PUNJAB LABOUR APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, LAHORE 2010 PLD 666
• JAHANGIR v. State 2010 YLR 668
• MUHAMMAD SHARIF v. TEHSIL COUNCIL KAHROOR PAKA, DISTRICT LODHRAN through Nazim 2010 YLR 672
• NAZIR AHMED v. DIN MUHAMMAD 2010 YLR 674
• MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE v. KHAN AMIR 2010 MLD 674
• ALLAH DITTA alias DITTI v. State 2010 YLR 680
• ADNAN IJAZ v. Mst. HANIFAN BIBI 2010 CLC 680

All Lahore High Court Lahore judgments of 2010 →

jobs for advocates from Badin lawyer

Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes