Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD MUSHTAQ versus MUHAMMAD SIKANDAR

Sections 497 (2) of the Conduct Rule (XLV of 1860), sections 109 and 458 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act (VIII of 1974), section 42 (II) were directed against the decision of the Shariah Court of Appeal. Under the bail order was approved. The right of the respondents was retained. He was equally responsible for the crime, which the other accused appellant also alleged had previously been denied bail, the following courts had no justification to release the respondents on bail. After that, there is no doubt legally that this person has been accused of punishment. It was thought that he had committed the crime himself, though he did not do it himself, but it was to be firmly established through strong evidence of control, only to be accused of a crime, which was a shortage. As a result, it was not enough to deprive a person, with the purpose of proving the exception to the bail, the accused prosecution was obliged to prove that through his incitement, conspiracy or willful assistance, the other accused This offense was committed by the court, as long as the case of the accused is included in the inquiry courts, in the present case, it is found that One of the further inquiries of the defendants / accused is, there has been a concession in bail, after the prosecutor has produced so many witnesses, it will be of no use to cancel the accused's bail, especially when there is evidence of prosecution. Was not charged with tampering with or violating the terms of the bail, so bail was granted in favor of the respondents / accused. By the following courts law firms from Thana Bula Khan lawyer