Find a Lawyer

SHAKEEL ARSHAD versus STATE

After hearing the petition on section 516 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), Sections 9 (b), 32 and 74 of the petitioner, who was the owner of the motor vehicle in question, The applicant, who was denied the sanction of the special court, who was a legitimate owner of the vehicle, was earning his living by renting a car by the accused / driver. The applicant in the case was not the accused person and there was nothing. To indicate that the applicant had no knowledge that the accused / driver would use. His vehicle will not accept the applicant's responsibility for committing any drug and law crime, proving his or her lack of information about it so that the rights of the owner of the crime Didn't know about the commission or had no awareness of the crime. When the court was completely safe, the courts would come to the rescue of the owners when their vehicles were used for commission without any knowledge of their vehicles. Variations; maintaining indefinitely in police custody can also serve no purpose. The ANF's local police was directed by the High Court to hand over the vehicle to the applicant on two bail bail with the petitioner. \ r \ n law websites from Gakhar Mandi lawyer