Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD SALEEM versus STATE

Section 497 of the Code of Conduct (XLV of 1860), Sections 412 and 411 bail, the FIR of the accused's grant was specifically recorded that the accused knew that he had been stripped, subject to the prohibition clause of section 497 The charge against the CRPC accused / applicant was that he had snatched the car from the complainant's driver at gunpoint along with his accomplices, which he had received from the occupant whose identity was related to the recovery. It was after receiving and then a case was registered against the accused, after which the trial court dismissed the bail after his arrest. The suspect claimed that the three men had a joint recovery. That the filing of the FIR was delayed by 31 days. The accused was in jail for more than 10 months and that the contents of the FIR under Section 412, PPC were not proven guilty and it was mostly a case of 411, PPC which was section 497, CRP. CK did not fall under the prohibited clause. Accused was specifically named in the FIR and before the current FIR he was also involved in two murder cases with a robber, so he could not claim to be a good record person, Under section 412, a case was to be filed under PPC. To prove that not only was the defendant in possession of the underlying property but he also had to prove that he knew or had some reason to believe that the property was transferred by the Duty Commission, the FIR family showed Whether the suspect was aware of the fact that the agitator was robbed in the robbery, the FIR reported that the police had recovered his car from a gang of robbers, property advocate from Kunjah lawyer