Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD QASIM versus STATE

Section 497 Preventive Code (XLV of 1860), Sections 302, 324, 148 and 149 bail, even though the incident took place in the middle of the night, the matter was reported to the police with appropriate promptness in which the accused was named. was done. The FIR was initially played in the FIR, and it turns out that the accused raised Lalikara and then slammed the head to expose the bone of his head and The complainant was also persistent about the accused's role in it. Additional statements, and similar allegations were made against the eyewitnesses in the FIR, including two injured persons, on the basis of their statements before the police, who were fully involved in the alleged crime. The FIR had supported the charges against the accused. The FIR was directly linked to the motive and during the investigation, the crime had already been recovered from the PO, after the suspect had equipped himself with a weapon to detect it and his He later played a key role in the alleged incident in which the parties expressed their common share with the accused under sections 302 and 324. , The PPC attracted the prohibited clause contained in section (1) of section 497, the CCPC Local Police had already chalked out against the accused Prima to believe the accused's involvement in the alleged crime Reasonable grounds existed that the defendant's bail application was dismissed immigration advocates contact from Nowshera lawyer