Find a Lawyer

SAEED QADIR versus THE STATE

Parliament and Provincial Assemblies (ineligible for membership) Order 1977 Section 497 (1), Third Proviso Panel Code (XLV 181860), Section 409/420/4687471/109 Corruption Prevention Act (Oil of 1947), Section 5 The Parliament and the Provincial Assembly (disqualified for membership) Order (17 of 1977), the Section 3 legally guaranteed defendant was behind bars for the last 18 months without end of his trial and delayed due to this Can't be attributed, no doubt, accepted by the defense lawyer. There were several days to cross-examine the prosecution's witnesses, but the trial court did not say that cross-examination, outside the scope of the 1984 evidence testimony, was irrelevant, ridiculous, or received some response in favor of defense. Was done with the sole purpose of confusing the witness. Thus, due to the prosecution's slow attitude at the end of the trial, the accused had obtained his right to be released on bail under the law. According to the prosecution, the government had suffered a loss of crores of rupees and was on trial. In order to secure the interests of the accused during the hearing and to ensure the presence of the accused, he was allowed bail in the amount of one crore rupees, as each one will get the satisfaction of the case with three guarantees. The court famous high court advocate from Bahawalnagar lawyer