Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD AZAM versus STATE

Despite the vigorous attempt to file a case under Section 498 Prevention Code (XLV of 1860), Section 77 arrest77 pre-arrest bail, the complainant did not succeed due to the negligence of the local police and eventually on the intervention of DIG police. The case was filed after the delay so the filing of the FIR was delayed by twenty days; the complainant Victim was examined by the child 20 days after the alleged incident took place. This is naturally not the reason. After a long period of time no one was hurt on his person. He also confessed to the extent of the attempt and did not commit the actual crime with modest enough content; at this point, the accused was in the possession of the prosecution to link the accused to the commission of the alleged crime and to believe he was involved. Was present on reasonable grounds The bail was denied before the arrest of the accused in the case.

Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2009

• DONGFANG ELECTRIC CORPORATION DEC BAROTHA CONSTRUCTION, ATTOCK through Project Manager v. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, MINERAL DEVELOPMENT, ATTOCK 2009 YLR 185
• YOUSAF MASIH v. State 2009 YLR 187
• Mst. ASMAT ELAHI v. KHIZER HAYAT 2009 CLC 188
• ALI HASHAM v. Mst. ISHRAT BANO 2009 YLR 190
• MUHAMMAD MUNAWAR v. State 2009 PCrLJ 195
• ZAHEER HUSSAIN ADIL v. PUNJAB COUNCIL OF THE ARTS through Executive Director 2009 PLD 197
• SHAMIR v. KHAN 2009 YLR 199
• SAFE WAY through Proprietor v. DEPUTY COLLECTOR CUSTOMS, (APPRAISEMENT GROUP-I), LAHORE 2009 PTD 201

All Lahore High Court Lahore judgments of 2009 →

power of attorney advocate Chohar Jamali lawyer

Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes