AMIR ALI versus STATE
The Section 497 Contempt Code (XLV of 1860), Sections 302 and 34 bail, denied the accused even though he was not named in the FIR, but the complainant stated that he and four eyewitnesses could identify the accused because they He was seen firing at the victim. According to the indictment, according to the record, the complainant had participated in the incident and was arrested and the identity was paraded, but the witnesses other than the complainant identified the accused as a suspect. Which showed that the accused had not been shown before. Eyewitnesses could not be considered at the bail-out stage, such as the obvious value of the identity parade, the prosecution had gathered enough evidence to link the accused to the commission of the crime and the case was contained in a prohibited clause of section 497, CRPC. The accused was arrested before the murder case in which he was jailed was not eligible for bail, the request for bail was dismissed.
Find a Lawyer Near You
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer
divorce advocates from Haveli Lakha lawyer
