MUHAMMAD ATIF versus STATE
There was no evidence in this case that the applicants' convictions for the suspension of judgment were final until the final decision of section 426 appealed. The key witness / complainant who identified the applicant was neither presented in evidence nor the arrest and recovery memo was brought on record to prove the crime against the applicant. ? That the mobile phone that was said to be shown as stolen property was owned by one of the applicants and there was no witness to the incident except for two police officers, Since the Waldity State Council had also agreed to approve the petition, the court, in the circumstances, for the satisfaction of the High Court vowed to release the applicants on a bail bond of Rs 100,000 each with PR bonds. allowed to.
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
list of advocates from Jhudo lawyer
