Find a Lawyer

FAIZ MUHAMMAD versus STATE

Further investigation of the FIR grants revealed that Section 497 (2) of the Conduct Rule (XLV of 1860), Sections 302, 337 H (ii), 148 and 149 Qatil Ahmed bail was assigned to the co-accused. Who allegedly opened fire on the victim. Conflicts between parties were recognized The role assigned to the suspect was that he was armed with a gun. The FIR was silent in connection with the shootings on the victim or any witnesses by the accused had been in jail since 23 23 2002 and no witnesses. Did not come To record his evidence, only one counselor was examined over a four-year period. Contradictory liability could not be determined at the bail-out stage. The presence of the accused at the place of dismissal and his involvement in the commission were determined. Will be made at the hearing only. Further investigation was carried out for the purpose of determining the alleged liability against the accused and sharing a common intention. The accused was admitted on bail, under the circumstances.

Related judgments — Karachi High Court Sindh, 2010

• 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
• Shaikh YOUSUF SHAHID v. SHAHID NADEEM 2010 CLD 1798
• ABDUL SATTAR v. IIND ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE/EX-OFFCIO JUSTICE OF PEACE 2010 PCrLJ 1801
• A.R. KHAN & SONS (PVT.) LTD through Authorized Officer v. FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Ministry of Commerce, Islamabad 2010 CLC 1810
• JAWWAD KHAN alias JAVED v. State 2010 YLR 1810

All Karachi High Court Sindh judgments of 2010 →

female advocates from Kech lawyer

Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes