Find a Lawyer

ALLAH DITTA versus THE STATE

Section 497 (2) was involved in this case through the Prevention Code (XLV of 1860), Section 302/324/34 Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Section 7A & 21J bail, grant inquiries for further investigation. Of the three witnesses recorded after eleven months of the incident, Syed's witnesses only stated that the accused had been seen before appearing in the company of the accused involved in the actual incident, who was allegedly involved. No pertinent evidence was collected by the police to confirm their involvement. The identity of the accused who participated in the original incident was never paraded; other than the last seen evidence with the accused, the prosecution had no other evidence that they had any motive and conspiracy to kill the victim. Or the incident occurred on their behalf or they facilitated the co-accused in the murder of the accused, which was not sufficient evidence gathered by the prosecution, i.e., connect the accused to the Commission of Crime about the accused persons. The case for further investigation was included under section 497, section (2) of the CCP and the accused were admitted on bail. how to become a advocate from Mirpur Khas lawyer