Find a Lawyer

ABDUL RAUF versus THE STATE

Section 497 Crimes against Property (Enforcement Hodg) Ordinance (VI of 1979), Section 17 (3) bail was previously granted bail by the competent court of the accused but subsequently the accused, without notice, was absent. On the date of the trial, the trial court ordered the issuance of a non-bailable warrant for his arrest and he also served self-notice on the accused's bail and was taken into custody as his bail was already canceled. The accused's pre-approved bail was canceled without notice to the accused under section 497 (5), CRPC, in the case, most of the accused Was to be absent without notice, which could immediately guarantee his bond arrest and bail, unless the bail is canceled after the notice is issued. For the accused, it will be urgent to ask for fresh bail, notice may not be required as a normal matter. The e-accused was allowed to remain on bail, as previously approved by the trial court and could grant bail, the course of action against the bail was to be adopted separately according to law by the trial court. top advocates from Kotla Jam lawyer