Find a Lawyer

MOULANA ABDUL AZIZ versus STATE

Section 497 Prevention Code (XLV of 1860), Sections 427, 448, 452, 506, 147 and 149 of the Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Sections 6, 7 and 21D (iv) of the Library of Complainants, denied The watchman, the student was a free man, and he was not a policeman. Serious attempts were made to restore the occupation. The accused was the man who was in charge of the Lal Masjid and the university, and it was said that all the students of the seminary were his. And they were willing to go to some extent in compliance with his order, and likewise when he was in commanding position, the situation arose at the time of the situation, I had already created fear / insecurity. During the incident, it was broken down and damaged the library, which was a public property where the area said the library was located, while presenting a photo of the area and people in the area feeling insecure. , And they are not even able to come into the scope of section 6 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, purchasing daily-use items and all such matters, which the lawyer for the accused contends that section 452, p. PC section 497 is not covered by the CRPC prohibition clause. No case should be decided on the merits of each case, even in this case the bail may be denied which does not fall under the prohibition clause of section 497, CCPC immunity was also not applicable in this case. Because the bail was granted in these cases was different from the present case, the facts and merits, the evidence cannot be deeply appreciated during the hearing of the bail application, but by the prosecution against the accused. jobs for fresh advocates from Kotli lawyer