Find a Lawyer

ZULQARNAIN SIKANDAR versus STATE

Section 497 (2) Control of Narcotic Substances (XXV of 1997), Section 6/9 (c) Guarantee, FIR was not self-described as an assertion of further investigative story that confidence could not be established. The anti-narcotic force, which was told about the presence of drug addicts in a house and then took them to such a house, found marijuana in the open in the presence of a member of the raiding party. Will be placed on the lawn. It was all the more incredible that such a person would be allowed to escape freely despite the fact that the armed men of this force were not only kept indoors and in the place where the bag was kept, but The house was not recovered from the person or the place of the accused suspect, who is said to have confessed to the Investigation Officer that he had been bailed out along with the other accomplices. The matter was investigated. The final invoice was presented and the marijuana could not be recovered from the original possession of the accused, who allegedly fled the scene because it is not yet known whether the accused was actually in Charis's possession, the case further added. Was. The Constable's inquiry statement against them was brought to the notice of the trial court and the accused was entitled to benefit from reasonable grounds and facts and doubts and guarantees in the facts and circumstances. The accused could not be denied in the trial, simply because the crime shown in the FIR could be punished, the accused was admitted on bail. law firms from Khair Pur Mir lawyer