MUHAMMAD SHARIF versus STATE
Section 497 Determination Code (XLV of 1860), 5302 facts alleged by the prosecution, shows that the accused was not only present at the house from which the two victims were forcibly abducted. He was also arrested at the spot where the body was found. From the prosecution's testimony, it was concluded by the accused applicants that as such an incident had never occurred by the prosecution, it could not be allowed to prevail at the bail-out stage. Were. The High Court was justified in witnessing that their case was proceeded under Section 497 (1) of the CRPC delay in the commencement of the case, which could not find an unusual or unlicensed request for leave to appeal. ?
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
best advocate from Taxila lawyer
