Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD FAIZ versus STATE

Section 497 Control of the Narcotic Substances Steel Act (XXV of 1997), Section 9 (B) and 25 Police Order (22 of 2002), Article 18 (4) bail, were investigated explicitly by Police Department HK Grant. ? Violation of the mandatory provisions of Article 18 (4), Police Order, 2002, which he was unable to do, however, in view of section 25 of the Narcotic Substances Act 1997, the provisions of section 103, CRPC Had not happened In this case, however, the recovery location and recovery time had to be taken into account so as to prevent the mistaken impression of innocent people observing normal police practices, accused of heroin recovery at a checkpoint in the afternoon. Happened near Several people may have been present, but admitted that neither the police had obtained the presence of any free persons from the public, nor had they made any effort in this regard, according to the FIR, weighing 270 grams containing five packets. Heroin was recovered from the accused, of which 50 grams of heroin was sent to the chemical analyst for expert opinion, thus, the highest amount of 54 grams of heroin pertaining to a packet of case property would be available, A). In the Control of the Narcotic Substance Act, 1997, the accused was granted bail under the circumstances attorney vs advocate vs counsel from Hunza Nagar lawyer