MUSHTAQ ALI versus STATE
Sections 497 and 103 of the Prohibition (Enforcement) Order (4 of 1979), Arts 3 and 4 bail, in the Council's grant for the accused, it was claimed that the provisions of Section 103, CRPC were violated. Because no private witness was involved despite the recovery. Containment at the allegedly busy place was not enforced under the provisions of Section 103, CCPC, as was the case in Article 4 of the Prohibited (Enforcement) Order, 1979, which was sentenced to a maximum of two years. , Which was such a guaranteed crime. The order of Article 3 did not fall under the prohibition clause of section 497, in which case the PC inquiry was complete and the police did not need the accused for any purpose, the sample was sent to the chemical examiner for analysis, but The report was not received. Back then, it could not be said whether the material recovered from the accused was alcohol or not, the accused was admitted in bail, under the circumstances.
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
when you need a advocate from Trinda Mohd Pannah lawyer
