Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD HANIF versus THE STATE

Criminal Code of Conduct (CR PC) Section 497 (2) Contempt Code (XLV of 1860), Section 302/34 Guarantee, the defendant's grant did not injure the witnesses or the witnesses and the presence of an accused on the spot and his The only part of the role attributed to Lalcara can be decided in this case. The other accused had neither picked up Lalikara nor participated in the incident as his presence was not established even if the accused was related to the weapon. There was no clear action even when the lace was present. They were attributed, especially when the original accused did not repeat the fire. The involvement of the accused in this case was a matter of further investigation. The accused did not need further investigation and did not serve any useful purpose in the judicial closure. Could go Until an indefinite period, the accused was admitted on bail under conditions best advocate from Kallur Kot lawyer