Find a Lawyer

GHULAM MUSTAFA versus MUHAMMAD REHTAS KHAN

In the application for the cancellation of pre-arrest bail, Articles 497 (5) and 498 of the Conduct Rule (XLV of 1860), sections 324 and 337f (ii), the FIR itself showed that the respondents / accused were early in the morning. Fired outside his home. The D-Section P / Section DPO found that the complainant's version of the original incident along with the alleged motive was incorrect and that the defendant / accused had acted in the exercise of the right of private defense as alleged. The victim entered the accused's home early. The trial court's offer of illegal contact with the wife of the defendant's Tenor of the Order indicated that the trial court's initial version of the alleged complainant was not substantiated and in such circumstances the trial The Court deems it appropriate to admit. The issue of approval and cancellation of the accused's bail before the bail was quite different, the plaintiff / accused challan of the case had already appeared in the trial court, arms were recovered from the suspect's possession after the investigation was completed. And the police did not need to arrest him in connection with the investigation, only to have the accused canceled for retaliation from the complaining party, otherwise the High Court would normally have completed the investigation and after the bail was canceled. After submitting the invoice application for, the accused was slow to cancel the bail under circumstances r \ n \ r \ n lawer from fb area from Moro lawyer