Find a Lawyer

MEHRAB versus STATE

The Section 497 Contempt Rule (XLV of 1860), Section 302/34 bail, the defendant's grant was behind bars for the past six years The case diary revealed that unsecured warrants were being issued against the prosecution's witnesses as they were in court. The case was not attended by the High Court as soon as possible, but it could not be complied with despite the delay of nearly two years as the extraordinary delay in the trial was concerned because it Because of this, there is no possibility of an end to the case in the near future. The defendant was granted bail after the prosecution's witnesses failed to appear, despite the introduction of coercion proceedings.

Related judgments — Karachi High Court Sindh, 2009

• NAZIR AHMED v. State 2009 PCrLJ 298
• AL-AHMED (PVT.) LTD. v. ANJUMAN FALAH-O-BEHBOOD, HAZARA MUGHAL GOTH 2009 CLC 299
• LASHKARI v. MANAGER, AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PAKISTAN, DADU BRANCH 2009 MLD 300
• MUHAMMAD ANIS v. State 2009 YLR 301
• SULTAN KHALID MASUD KHATTAK v. FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary Establishment Division 2009 PLC(CS) 302
• BANK OF CREDIT AND COMMERCE INTERNATIONAL, S.A. through Special Attorney v. Mrs. SHAHIDA JAM SADIQ ALI 2009 PLD 303
• MUHAMMAD UMAR v. YAR MUHAMMAD through Legal Heirs 2009 CLD 305
• MUHAMMAD IMRAN alias UMER v. State 2009 YLR 306

All Karachi High Court Sindh judgments of 2009 →

top civil advocates from Kamalia Musa lawyer

Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes