Find a Lawyer

SYED PERVAIZ MUSHARRAF versus STATE

The original accused in the section 2 (k) and 28 inter-provincial exchange cases was involved in multiple cases and was in the custody of Islamabad police. The accused filed his case for the application of territorial jurisdiction for personal protection under section 2. Demanded transfer to Islamabad. (K) The Anti Terrorism Act, 1997 was the area for which the Anti Terrorism Court was established. Islamabad did not fall under the territorial jurisdiction of the Balochistan High Court nor was there any area where the Chief Justice used Balochistan. Could do. The Chief Justice of the High Court could not move any matter outside the jurisdiction of the High Court; all the attacks on the accused took place in the Rawalpindi city area, so Quetta was not like that. More dangerous to the suspect; it was the government's responsibility and duty to ensure the safety and security of the detained detainee.

Related judgments — Quetta High Court Balochistan, 2014

• ABDUL QADIR SHAH v. MUHAMMAD QASIM 2014 PLD 28
• Syed PERVEZ MUSHARRAF v. State 2014 PLD 33
• SAJJAD ALI v. State 2014 YLR 37
• ABDUL HAMEED v. Mst. SHABNAM alias SHABANA 2014 PLD 39
• KHAN MUHAMMAD v. State 2014 PCrLJ 48
• Haji ABDUL HAMEED v. RAZ MUHAMMAD 2014 PLD 50
• PAKISTAN MINERAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION (PVT), LIMITED v. DIRECTOR-GENERAL, DIRECTORATE OF MINES AND MINERALS BALOCHISTAN 2014 PLD 55
• BIBI FEROZA v. ABDUL HADI 2014 CLC 60

All Quetta High Court Balochistan judgments of 2014 →

when you need a advocate from Sargodha lawyer

Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes