Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD ASIF versus STATE

Section 497 of the Code of Conduct (XLV of 1860), Section 380/381/34 Theft by dwelling house and theft by clerk or servant guarantee, the defendant's name was immediately mentioned in the FIR Robbery articles were recovered from the possession of the accused was sufficient to link the alleged crime to the record only the temporary examination of the available material was to be done at the bailout stage, and deep praise was also avoided by the complainant. There was no illicit gain and the police were constituted on a grant. In non-bailable offenses, it was not entitled to bail, although this case was not covered by the prohibition clause of section 497, the CCP had to decide each case on its own merits and the law of the case did not apply as a law. Could have been done. Bail was denied

Related judgments — Karachi High Court Sindh, 2010

• ALI RAZA v. State 2010 YLR 1716
• DEWAN CEMENT LTD. v. PAKISTAN through Secretary Ministry of Finance, Revenue Division and Ex-officio Chairman, F.B.R., Is 2010 PTD 1717
• THE STATE through Chairman National Accountability Bureau v. ADAM KHAN JOKHIO 2010 MLD 1718
• SHAHBAZ v. State 2010 PCrLJ 1719
• PRECIOUS INDUSTRIAL PARK (PRIVATE) LIMITED v. PROVINCE OF SINDH 2010 YLR 1725
• RAJIB ALI v. STATION HOUSE OFFICER, POLICE STATION DARI 2010 YLR 1729
• AL-REHMAN ASSOCIATES through Special Power of Attorney v. PROVINCE OF SINDH through Secretary Land Utilization Department 2010 CLC 1734
• AHMED ALI v. LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER L.B.O.D WAPDA 2010 YLR 1736

All Karachi High Court Sindh judgments of 2010 →

famous lower court advocate from Khandabad lawyer

Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes