Find a Lawyer

WALAYAT ALI versus STATE

Sections 514 and 439 of the Conduct Rule (XLV of 1860), Sections 337H (2) and 342 were certainly charged with the confiscation of the bond for which the applicant was held on bail, fixed for confirmation of bail. Failure to appear in court on date, his (accused) bail plea was dismissed and notice of confiscation of bail was also issued to the bailiffs under section 141414, the CCPC which at the time of the said accused. The trial court was fully justified in imposing a fine on the applicant, however the bail stands on bail. No indictment was made on the basis of humanitarian sympathy, neither for any economic benefit nor after that, on the same day, the accused was indicted that same date. He appeared before the court with another plea for bail and later his bail was earlier arrested. The agreement between the parties confirmed that the applicant was a poor person, maintaining a balance between inappropriate softening and irresponsibility. Despite the upheaval of the trial court's financial penalty, the unclean order of confiscation of the guarantors was maintained, but the amount of penalty imposed on the applicant was reduced by Rs. 15, 000 and Rs. 10. G, 000, Rs.5,000 each respectively \ r \ n \ r \ n best law firm from Khandabad lawyer