Find a Lawyer

SIKANDAR HAYAT versus STATE

Section 497 Conventional Code (XLV of 1860), Section 302/34 bail, the defendant's grant was behind bars for the last three years, and no witnesses could be examined in this case until two years and seven months ago. The petition has been dismissed by the High Court, but no progress has been made in the trial. The charge against the accused was only aerial shootings and could not be kept behind bars for indefinite period; the principal accused, the real brother of the accused, was each absconding and each person was responsible for his own actions. I was admitted on bail

Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2009

• NAWAB ALI v. JAVAID IQBAL NABI 2009 PLD 49
• M.D. ESCORTS PAKISTAN LTD v. MUNAWAR KHALIQ 2009 PLC 50
• PAKISTAN INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL LEASING LTD. through Authorised v. HAQ KNITWEAR (PVT.) LTD. through Chief Executive 2009 PLD 52
• SHAUKAT HAYAT v. SHAKIL AHMAD MUGHAL 2009 CLD 53
• MUHAMMAD ANWAR alias BILLA v. State 2009 MLD 54
• SAIMA HASSAN v. SAJJAD AHMAD 2009 YLR 57
• ABDUL GHAFFAR v. State 2009 PCrLJ 57
• EJAZ INAYAT v. Rt. Rev. Dr. A.J. MALIK 2009 PLD 57

All Lahore High Court Lahore judgments of 2009 →

divorce advocates from Zhob lawyer

Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes