Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD AKRAM versus THE STATE

Section 497 Determination Code (XLV of 1860), Section 392 bail, identification of the defendant's identity grant was obtained by the prosecution's witnesses and from where the looted property was recovered was identified by the accused as consistency in the case of the accused. Did not apply. The co-accused was released on bail and did not carry out an identity test in his case by eyewitnesses, before the bail application filed by the accused was dismissed by the High Court and his dismissal challenged before the Supreme Court. No fresh material was brought, the High Court refused to consider the accused's plea that the prosecution had sufficient evidence in connection with the accused's companionship, the trial court charged the accused. And issue a warrant for the prosecution witnesses to obtain their presence Had tried to increase On the record to show that the accused was involved, the application bail was dismissed on the basis of the enmity of the accused. jobs for advocates from Mamu kunjan lawyer