Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD MUQEEM versus ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE KOTRI

Section 497 (5) of the Criminal Procedure (XLV of 1860), the testimony of the prosecution of section 468 forgery was not harassed, there was no need to cancel, however, in the trial if there were any harsh material after the trial. If it appears that the prosecution's witnesses were being harassed or prevented from coming to court to present evidence, then the trial court would be free to consider the cancellation of the bail.

Related judgments — Karachi High Court Sindh, 2010

• GHULAM SARWAR v. State 2010 MLD 1775
• Chaudhry MUHAMMAD ASLAM v. State 2010 PCrLJ 1778
• SABIR HUSSAIN SHAH v. State 2010 MLD 1782
• MUHAMMAD SHAFIQ v. State 2010 YLR 1784
• MUHAMMAD ASHRAF v. Mrs. AZRA MUQEEM 2010 CLC 1788
• BANK OF KHYBER v. NAZAMUDDIN 2010 CLD 1792
• MACKS ELECTRONICS INTERNATIONAL CO. through Attorney v. NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN 2010 CLD 1795
• HIKMAT KHAN v. State 2010 MLD 1795

All Karachi High Court Sindh judgments of 2010 →

top advocates from Naseerabad lawyer

Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes