The grant in connection with the sale agreement in the case was a subpoena before a civil court, despite the recovery of the alleged contract, section 497 of the Contempt Rule (XLV of 1860), section 419/420/471. Was not received. The accused in the sentencing on physical remand did not come under the Article 497 Prohibition Clause, the accused were father and son of almost 16 years delay in filing the CCPCFIR and that too One was a close relative of the document's alleged executive. The accused was an ill old man over 60 years old and the other co-accused had already extended the bail, prosecutor's testimony was not supported In all case of the prosecution challan was presented in the trial court, but the case The hearing did not begin shortly. Under the circumstances, the bail was filed
Find a Lawyer Near You
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
