Find a Lawyer

SAIF UR REHMAN versus STATE

Section 497 (2) of the Criminal Procedure (XLV of 1860), Rule 324/427/34 assassination of Mm attempt and bail to corrupt, further inquiry the trial court observed that the name of the accused in the FIR The mention was made with specific. Character, but where no specific character was mentioned in the FIR, it was common to claim that the bullets fired by the accused had no evidence that the shot had damaged the rear glass. Has arrived and there is no medical report of the injured person. The record was that the accused needed further investigation to link him to the crime.

Related judgments — Karachi High Court Sindh, 2010

• Mrs. MEHMOODA AFTAB v. MARGHOOB HUSSAIN 2010 MLD 503
• GANDHARA CONSULTANTS (PVT.) LTD. v. PAKISTAN DEFENCE OFFICER'S HOUSING AUTHORITY, KARACHI 2010 CLC 506
• BALACH v. State 2010 PCrLJ 509
• ABDUL RASHID KHAN v. GOVERNMENT OF SINDH through Secretary Labour 2010 PLC 510
• Mst. ANEETA TANVEER v. MUHAMMAD YOUNUS 2010 YLR 513
• FAISAL KAPADIA v. MOTOROLA LTD. 2010 MLD 518
• THE STATE through Deputy Attorney-General v. MUHAMMAD AMIN HAROON 2010 PCrLJ 518
• MUHAMMAD IKHLAQ v. Mst. HAMEEDA NAQVI 2010 MLD 523

All Karachi High Court Sindh judgments of 2010 →

us immigration advocates from Narang Mandi lawyer

Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes