UMER HAYAT versus STATE
Sections 497 (XLV of 1860), Sections 337 F (v), L (ii), 148 and 149 bail, two versions of the case grant and which version was correct, viewed by the trial court after recording of the evidence. Will go The accused party was involved in a case that did not fall under the prohibition clause of section 497, the CR accused was behind bars for the last 7 months and nothing was recovered from his possession. Was not even The police needed further investigation, which was complete and his further detention in prison would not be of any benefit to the prosecution, though he was allegedly armed with a gun, but he did not accept bail in such cases. Didn't use that in the case either. , Was a rule and denial was an exception and in this case there were no unusual circumstances to deny the accused's bail.
Find a Lawyer Near You
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer
law firms from Garh More lawyer
