Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD SHAHID versus STATE

The four-day delay in filing the FIR was not mentioned in Section 497 (2) of the Criminal Procedure (XLV of 1860), Section 392/34 bail, further investigation name, characteristics and details of the accused, It was not explained to the complainant by the complainant that no identification parade had been held before the magistrate accused, who had made the accused for further inquiry under Section 497, sub-section (2) of the PCP. Presented, the accused was admitted on bail, under the circumstances

Related judgments — Karachi High Court Sindh, 2010

• RIAZ AHMED v. PROVINCE OF SINDH through Secretary, Government of Sindh, Board of Revenue at Hyderabad 2010 PLC(CS) 894
• SPEEDWAY FONDMETALL, PAKISTAN LTD. v. NIB BANK LTD.(Formerly PICIC) 2010 CLD 896
• SALMAN ALVI v. UNITED BANK LTD. through President 2010 MLD 899
• COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS v. PAK ARAB RAFINERY, KARACHI 2010 PTD 900
• ZAFAR H. ISMAIL v. Mrs. RUBINA ALI AAMIR 2010 YLR 902
• NABI BUX JAHEJO v. PROVINCE OF SINDH through Secretary, Agriculture 2010 PLC(CS) 902
• BANK OF PUNJAB v. FIRST NATIONAL EQUITIES LIMITED 2010 CLD 903
• MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM v. State 2010 PCrLJ 907

All Karachi High Court Sindh judgments of 2010 →

best advocate from Rajana lawyer

Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes