Find a Lawyer

MEHBOOB ZAFAR BUTT versus STATE

Prior to the arrest of Section 498 Preventive Code (XLV of 1860), Section 409, the defendant's denial had obtained the vehicle in question relating to the surplus, which was confirmed in his favor and subsequently submitted by the complainant. The cancellation request was made and through an interim order approved by the civil. The judge, the accused, was instructed to submit a vehicle to the court. But the order of the accused superdriver, which was affirmed in favor of the accused, could not be canceled. The order passed in the constitutional petition was not already canceled by the High Court. The accused did not restore the vehicle. Then, returning only two days before applying for bail before the arrest in court, will not exclude the accused from the commission of the alleged presence, when for the first time his order of return is approved by this directive. It was said that the vehicle would remain in the custody of the court and the time sought for the accused to appear in the court was adjourned and after that the accused disappeared on three dates: from the court and never returned the vehicle, In the circumstances it violated the terms and conditions of the superannuation order according to which he was obliged to submit. The purpose of bail prior to arrest was to protect innocent civilians whenever the vehicle is required to be present in court, in case they were found involved in a criminal case with the defendant's knowledge, but the accused, present In this case, the offense of his presence in the court, despite the instructions issued by him, failed to present the vehicle under question in the court. , Was made against the accused, pre-arrest of the accused patent advocate from Gujrat lawyer