Find a Lawyer

GUL SHER versus STATE

Section 497 Criminal Procedure (XLV of 1860), Section 324 / 337A (i) Criminal Property Enforcement Ordinance (VI 1979), Section 17 (3) Guarantee, Grant of the accused allegedly Was caught with. Immediately after the incident, he was pursued with the help of police personnel and was immediately added to the FIR Complainant, and both witnesses of the incident took their oaths before the trial court. Was that they allegedly expelled the accused. The prosecution's witnesses also affirmed their affidavits and their contents before the High Court, although specific charges were leveled against the accused in the FIR, but the prosecution's witnesses' stand was heard before a private court. As well, he had to look into the matter. The witnesses, including the complainant, were not supporting the prosecution's case, and initially, the suspect was unlikely to be prosecuted until the alleged recovery of the pistol and property looted by the accused was not supported. There were no eyewitness accounts of the actual robbery incident by police officials, when the complaining party was pursuing the accused, two different sets of prosecution witnesses were available in the case, who could present evidence in opposite directions, but Of real importance would be to the complainant himself who was the victim of the robbery as well Witnesses should also be aware that the evidence of police officers will be a contentious part of the evidence in the circumstances. Therefore, the accused was entitled to bail privileges and accordingly was allowed bail. online advocate from Sihala lawyer