Find a Lawyer

INAMUL HAQUE versus THE STATE

Criminal Code of Conduct (CR PC) Section 497 Constitutional Code (1D, of 1860), Section 409/420/468/471/4681471/477/477 AI34 Guarantee, the only serious aspect of the case was the grant that large sums Was embezzled and the loss to the bank came to over Rs 32 million when the gravity of the crime was seen from the amount of crime amount was not the only deciding factor in the decision to request bail. While a temporary review was to be conducted by the court. Examining the request for bail without examining the merits of the case restrained by the prosecutor to restrict himself to the material placed before him, to see if there was some concrete evidence against the accused that, if they were found to be a crime. If left unchecked, it may lead to identification of a crime for which no evidence was found. Point out that the accused was the beneficiary of the fraudulent money and the investigating agency did not tolerate the signature of the accused in any capacity, the investigating agency could not collect the solid evidence naturally so that they could draw the persons. Get involved The accused had to be assigned or paid or assigned the same role as being the President / Chief Executive Bank, assigning powers to co-assign the accused, allegedly involved in direct involvement in the crime. Was unable to assert that there was accumulated documentary evidence against the co-accused. Direct involvement of the accused was disclosed Not long before the interim invoice was made, no progress was made in the trial, before the accused's role was sought by the commission of the crime. best advocate from Naseerabad lawyer