Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD TAHIR versus TARIQ PERVEZ

Section 497 (5) of the Conduct Rule (XLV of 1860), section 302/34 request for cancellation of bail was not charged by any of the complainants, but the next day under section 161 of the Complainant On the statement, the CRP was recorded in which it charged five. Both the complainant and his brother have witnessed the incident in their statements under Section 11, CRPC, on the same day, while in the FIR they have not stated that they have seen the incident. ? The only case for further investigation was to examine whether the complainant and his brother were present at the time of the incident or whenever reasonable suspicion arose regarding the involvement of an accused in the crime or On the fact / probability of the prosecution case and the evidence presented in support of the charge, the accused should not be denied the benefit of the doubt, should be charged in such a situation, he should be kept in jail during the trial. No more bail was charged in the plea or in the complainant's argument that the accused interrupted the investigation. Misused the bail exception by making some efforts to allege or tamper with the evidence or that the accused used a breach of the prosecutor's testimony. To bail the accused through the court, they were convincing and unconcerned, nor were they defamatory, disobedient and wrong, the interference was guaranteed No extraordinary circumstances were shown that the bail was canceled by the competent court. The request to cancel the bail was granted in the circumstances best law firm from Deh Pathaan lawyer