Find a Lawyer

GHULAM AKBAR versus STATE

The preliminary arrest of Section 498 Criminal Procedure (XLV of 1860), pre-arrest of Section 392 robbery, delay of one-and-a-half months in the filing of the FIR, along with other grounds requested by the accused's lawyer, were sufficiently unsatisfactory. Was. The prosecution stated that the interim arrest granted to the accused was proved on the same terms and conditions.

Related judgments — Karachi High Court Sindh, 2010

• ZAHID ALI v. State 2010 PCrLJ 1492
• Mst. SHAHANA BEGUM v. PROVINCE OF SINDH through Senior Member, Board of Revenue 2010 CLC 1492
• ZULFIQAR AHMED v. Mst. RUBINA 2010 MLD 1496
• HOT KHAN v. State 2010 YLR 1505
• GHULAM SARWAR v. Mst. AAISHA 2010 YLR 1515
• MUHAMMAD NAEEM SAJID v. State 2010 YLR 1527
• KHYBER TEXTILE MILLS LTD. v. INVESTMENT CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN 2010 CLD 1529
• SARFARAZ QUADRI v. LIGHT METAL AND RUBBER INDUSTRIES (PVT.) LTD. 2010 CLD 1531

All Karachi High Court Sindh judgments of 2010 →

how to become a advocate from Sambrial lawyer

Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes