Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD ASLAM versus STATE

Section 497 Determination Code (XLV of 1860), Section 302134 bail bail, FIR was denied immediately and a complaint was filed by the witnesses as well as the accused officer in the investigation. Who was involved in the crime. The accused was placed in column number 2 of the challan, but the magistrate admitted that he had joined him as the accused and the accused did not conform to the alleged order and medical evidence of the magistrate. At the bail stage, the accused could not make the case that it was of two versions. The lawyer's counsel for the accused was a common charge against the accused and no particular role was attributed to the accused. Cannot be done because deep testimony of the evidence was not valid. The bail phase, which could only take place at trial, was present against the accused in the premix case which prevented him from granting bail privileges. The bail application was not considered, and accordingly it was dismissed

Related judgments — Karachi High Court Sindh, 2010

• ZOHAIB HASAN v. PROVINCE OF SINDH 2010 YLR 908
• SHAHEEN MULTI FOODS (PVT.) LTD. (FLOUR MILLS) through Chief Executive v. ABDUL HAFEEZ RAJPUT 2010 CLC 908
• MEHBOOB AHMAD SOOMRO v. FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Islamabad 2010 PLC(CS) 911
• SADIQ BROTHERS v. II-ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE KARACHI South 2010 MLD 913
• M. MUHAMMAD SHAFI & CO. v. A. REHMAN ENTERPRISES 2010 CLD 920
• Dr. MUHAMMAD ZUBAIR YOUSFANI v. SECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION/CHAIRMAN, CENTRAL BOARD OF REVENUE, ISLAMABAD 2010 PLC(CS) 920
• MUHAMMAD HANIF S. KALIA v. State 2010 PCrLJ 921
• MUHAMMAD YOUSAF v. COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS (PREVENTIVE), KARACHI 2010 PTD 922

All Karachi High Court Sindh judgments of 2010 →

jobs for advocates from Sialkot lawyer

Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes