Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD ARIF versus STATE

Criminal Code of Conduct (CRPC) Section 497 Constitutional Code (XLV of 1860), Section 419/420/467/468/471/409 Corruption Prevention Act (II of 1947), Section 5 (2) Guarantees, 1st. The grant of a bail application was heard and dealt with by a co-accused by a High Court judge, who released the co-accused on bail, hearing another petition filed by two other co-accused. A different judge conducted a hearing and released the accomplices. On bail but the petition filed by the accused / appellant, the bail was heard and heard by various judges who refused to release the accused / appellant on bail. The accused / appellant's bail application should have been settled by the same judge who heard the earlier and dismissed the bail. In this case, the practice of filing a bail plea by the same person or his co-accused, and setting it before different judges, not only results in conflicting decisions but also encourages error. Is. It accused the people and brought the judicial system into disrepute, because then a contradictory order from another judge in a plea could create the impression that, although wrong, the other The order was based on unnecessary consideration, after which a request for bail must be made. It was placed before the same judge for disposal who dealt with the first bail application and the lawyer also had to show the fact of the previous application and conclude that the order of dismissing the accused / appellant's bail. Was placed along the direction which the High Court will deal with divorce advocates from Malakand lawyer