Find a Lawyer

UMAR DIN LODHI versus THE STATE

Section 498 Criminal Procedure (XLV of 1860), Articles 409/420/467/468/471 A / 34 Corruption Prevention Act (Second of 1947), Section 5 (2) Pre-arrest Guarantee Guarantee from 1992 to 1996 And related to the accused. Was posted as ADM in 1995, so the entire period shown in the FIR could not be put into his account, the accused's act relating to his posting period was found in two departmental investigations. Which is irregular. There was no embezzlement in the investigation of the amount exceeding the sanctioned amount of government money, and the challan was submitted to the court alleging that it was a retired civil servant for further investigation. Did not need. There could be no basis for denying bail, the two co-accused had already been granted bail; the accused requested Malala's duty on behalf of the complainant because of her personal illness. The records and all the documents are in the possession of the prosecution; there was no possibility of tampering with the evidence. The accused did not misuse the exception of interim pre-arrest bail one and a half years ago and this was confirmed in the circumstances. solicitors from Shorkot lawyer