Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD HANIF versus STATE

Section 302/324/148/149/109 Criminal Code of Conduct (v. 1898), Section 516A & 561 the defendant was the owner of a property vehicle used by the applicant in which the accused arrived at the scene of the incident and the investigating police During the crime. In this case, the property applicant was the only person who requested the temporary custody of his property area magistrate and for no reason and rejected the application by the Lower Appellate Court. The applicant was not a suspect in the matter until the recording of the evidence until his submission and according to the FIR, the accused used the car to reach the scene, thus there was no legal justification to seize the car. Didn't exist. Keep the local police car in its custody, especially when it was not used in the commission of any crime. Failing to follow the law on the subject matter, both the courts declared the orders passed without any valid legal authority. The court directed the authorities to hand over the petition to Car Superdy power of attorney advocate Mangi lawyer