Find a Lawyer

KHUSHNOOD ALIAS ARIF versus STATE

Section 497 (2) of the Conduct Rule (XLV of 1860), Sections 302, 109 and 34 bail, in this case the grant of further inquiries was made at 10 o'clock in the evening with the house of the accused and the deceased present. During the odd hours of the night, serious suspicion was raised on the prosecution's case, and one of the co-accused was declared innocent during the investigation and the accused was introduced as the suspect who allegedly made the incident. I participated was not mentioned in the FIR by the complainant or otherwise the accused was not resident in the same place in the incident days where the complainant was located and how he got to know the name of the accused. Other inquiries were questioned, otherwise the presence of the complainant and other witnesses on this occasion was also suspected to be a preliminary factor as Occasional witnesses testified Medical evidence also did not support the story of the ocular account It is not possible for the deceased to die because of suffocation by suppressing his neck. Testimony witnesses did not say that the suspect had hit the neck. And the manner in which he killed the victim, is evidence that the first case alone conflicted with the account and otherwise, the suspect's involvement in the case could not be prosecuted because of suspicion. ? The accused cannot be held behind bars for indefinite circumstances, as there was no possibility of trial in the near future, further investigating the accused's case under Section 497 (2), the CR accused Bail was admitted, in the circumstances best advocate from Choa Saiden Shah lawyer