Find a Lawyer

KAMRAN ALIAS KAMI versus STATE

Section 497 Prevention Code (XLV of 1860), Section 656565/50 2/6/506 bail, in this case an FIR grant was filed approximately one month after the incident, without any explanation for the delay. He was not arrested on the spot, but was shown after his arrest In another case, around one month after the FIR was registered, a mobile set and music player were charged with the recovery of the FIR. About one month after the registration of RK, the identity parade was also arranged, which was shown about one month after the FIR person was enrolled. Through Willis, as the eyewitness to the case, the police record for the parade of identification was silent and nothing was in the record, to show whether the complainant appeared and the doctor's It was investigated by which caused him trouble. The complainant in his hand, Prima Fika, was not a witness to the incident, except that when the complainant was returning with his brother, he saw his car parked at the spot where he was abducted by the accused. That is, all the witnesses, except one policeman, who according to the prosecution did not appear in court for identification, could not rule on a lower sentence under the circumstances and no more serious case could be made. At the stage of bail, he needed praise, the accused was admitted in bail, under conditions list of supreme court advocates from Timergara lawyer