Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD AKRAM versus STATE

Before the arrest of Section 498 Immigration Ordinance (XVIII of 1979), Sections 17 (i) and 22 (b), charges of refusal were filed in the FIR and serious allegations were made against them, FIA The complainant had made a statement before the authority. From the pretext of sending the accused abroad for employment purposes, he received Rs. 5,770,000, under the Immigration Ordinance 1979 and the Immigration Ordinance 1979. Fourteen years in prison, he was subjected to a prohibition clause of section 497, in the case against the PCA FIA officials for allowing extraordinary concession in the pre-arrest bail of corn feeds. Financial forces were not demonstrated. In this case, two other similar cases were registered against the accused, after the ad interim bail was approved, which was not presented to the lower court when the case was fixed for C. The charge of confirming his bail, in the circumstances before the lower court earlier misappropriation of the arrest warrant exception FIR witnesses fully supported the prosecution case in their statements to FIA officials. , Which included several other accusations against him. On the record linking the accused to the commission of the crime leveled against him, his interim bail pre-arrest warrant, he was withdrawn. property advocate from Mian Chunnu lawyer