Find a Lawyer

ASHIQ HUSSAIN versus STATE

Section 498 Criminal Procedure (XLV of 1860), Section 365B / 494/148/149 pre-arrest bail, the defendant testified he presented it to the High Court and appeared before the alleged kidnapper and claimed to the spouse. He did not kidnap her, but she is in litigation. The couple married because of her free will, and they both lived because the husband and wife complainant did not come to court and they were not pursuing the case. The wife of the accused (alleged kidnapper) was a minor. The girl was and he was legally married to the accused. The alleged ex-husband was not prosecuted by the complaining officer after the alleged kidnapper was found guilty of allegations of ex-marriage and leaving her ex-husband without getting divorced. At the same time, the Additional Prosecutor General was not in a position to be vertically impressed with the fact that the interim pre-arrest bail granted to the accused was confirmed on the same terms. And conditions

Related judgments — Karachi High Court Sindh, 2009

• ABDUL QADIR Alias BABOO v. State 2009 PCrLJ 79
• MUNAWAR alias MUNOO v. State 2009 YLR 80
• USMAN TEXTILE MILLS LTD 2009 CLD 82
• MUHAMMAD AFZAL v. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER 2009 MLD 82
• MUHAMMAD AMIR KHAN v. Mst. SURRAYA 2009 CLC 83
• AURANGZEB KHAN v. DISTRICT POLICE OFFICER 2009 YLR 83
• GHULAM MUSTAFA v. SHAH MURAD SUGAR MILLS LTD. through Factory Manager 2009 PLC 83
• UNITY MODARABA MANAGEMENT (PVT.) LTD. v. REGISTRAR, MODARABA COMPANIES AND MODARABAS 2009 CLD 85

All Karachi High Court Sindh judgments of 2009 →

online advocate from Ghuzdar lawyer

Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes