Sections 497 (2) of the Criminal Procedure (XLV of 1860), Sections 395 and 412, obtaining fraudulently stolen property in the commission of a robbery bail, granting further inquiry to the accused were stated in the supplemental statement Was. The suspect was named, but no source was given. And merely mentioned that the complainant had come to know of the accused's involvement that no identity parade had been made in this case, and in this case there was no complaint of exemption from the identity parade The complainant's subsequent claim was that the accused included the accused. The man who committed the robbery, but his statement was without any means, the police had come to the conclusion that the accused was guilty to the extent of buying the goods in question from the FIR, he specifically mentioned that the unidentified robbers. Had seized the warehouse keys from the watchman, but the statement of such watchman was not recorded by the investigating officer. In this case the investigating officer did not record the statement of the sole witness, the FIR mentioned. The alleged retrieval of the 198 bags from the suspects was not made, nor was the investigation made after the investigation, nor was it After the recording of the evidence to the complainant for the value of the said recovery was shown to be appreciated by the trial court, in the case of the accused, further inquiry was sought, the accused who was behind bars There was no previous criminal record, though the case was later involved in other criminal cases, but his request for bail was allowed, adding the suspect, under the circumstances,
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2013
