Find a Lawyer

WALAYAT versus STATE

Section 497 (2) Canon Evidence (10 of 1984), Article 22 Panel Code (XLV of 1860), Section 395/412 Bail, Further Investigation Case Property Grant, Frames (Stolen Property) Identification Never before the Complainant Not kept Owned and proven that the stolen property stolen was recovered. There was no evidence indicating the involvement of the alleged robberies and that the recovered property was stolen and that the property was owned by the complainant and the effect was legally on the investigating officer Firms were required to be annexed to the person and they were identified by the complainant but such practice was never performed and thus no evidence was found to prove that the stolen property was stolen from the exported decree. Was. The investigating officer has termed it as negligence on the part of the High Court that in cases of murder, the bandits and the robbers were being harmed by such a procedure and the habitual robbers or bandits were allowed to appear before the High Court. This was a serious case and the senior police officers of the department were closing their eyes on such serious matters, the prosecution branch was silent on such a serious matter, the absence of such necessary evidence led to the prosecution of the accused. Further investigated. The grounds were there to believe that the accused had committed a crime under section 395/412, the PPC bail was granted in the bail. famous lower court advocate from Sohawa District Daska lawyer