Find a Lawyer

YASIN ALIAS BHUTTO versus STATE

Considering the duration of sections 382B and 561 detention and giving the benefit of Section 382B, the hereditary jurisdiction of the High Court scope petitioner prayed for the benefit of Section 382B, CRPC. That it was mandatory. The trial court will consider the grant case or Section 382B, the CR PC's benefit, but this was not done in the case of the applicant; Hydati had the inherent jurisdiction to take advantage of the provisions of section 382B. ? The CCP was allowed to request an offender filed by the applicant and increased the benefit of Section 238 of B, the period of detention of the PCP accused will be calculated according to his sentence.

Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2010

• NASEER AHMAD v. State 2010 MLD 995
• ASGHAR ALI v. PUNJAB PROVINCE through Collector District Sargodha 2010 CLC 997
• MUHAMMAD FAROOQ MAAN v. DIRECTOR-GENERAL, ANTI-CORRUPTION 2010 PCrLJ 997
• WASEEM AHMAD alias SEEMI v. MUKHTAR AHMAD 2010 YLR 998
• WAQAS ZAFAR v. BAHA-UD-DIN ZAKRIYA UNIVERSITY, MULTAN through Vice-Chancellor 2010 CLC 999
• MUHAMMAD AKHTAR v. State 2010 YLR 999
• MUHAMMAD ASLAM v. State 2010 YLR 1001
• ABDUL GHAFOOR v. KHALID AMIN 2010 CLC 1003

All Lahore High Court Lahore judgments of 2010 →

best advocate from Hyderabad lawyer

Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes