SHAUKAT MEHMOOD versus STATE
Criminal Code of Conduct (CRPC) Sections 497 of the Narcotic Substance Act (XXV of 1997), SS: 9 (C) and 14 bail, were seized from possession of grants of heavy quantities of marijuana, which were seized. Has been overcome. It has been alleged that he was subjected to enmity by fugitives, he was powerful because no material was recorded on the accused's mere words, which would suggest that the trial was the result of enmity. And the police confused the suspects. The men did not falsely produce any documentary material or any other material in this case, which can be concluded that the recovery counsel was a stock witness as it is alleged that the prosecution. In each case, the evidence of a witness cannot be excluded on the basis that a particular person has Oops. Acting as a prosecution witness in another case, was not appropriate for grant of bail in view of strange facts and circumstances of the case
Find a Lawyer Near You
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer
when you need a advocate from Tharo Shah lawyer
