Find a Lawyer

MST. MARYAM BIBI versus ALLAH RAKHA

Sections 497 (5) and 498 Penal Code (XLV of 1860); Trial for Cancellation of Sections 379, 427, 447, 148 and 149 Crimes Against Property (Enforcement Hood) Ordinance (VI 1979), Section 14 Bail The trial court testified before the arrest of the accused, observing that the investigating officer had eliminated the offenses. Under section 9379, 7427, PPC, the Crimes Against Property (Enforcement Code) ordinance, acid 1414 and PP under section 1979, and crime under section 7ense7, PP, C was guaranteed when the main offense was competent. If there were bail, other offenses would also be considered guaranteed as seals and drownings. With section 497 (5) of the main offense, the CCP did not order the court to revoke the bail unless the offense was punishable by imprisonment or life imprisonment and even if the bail under section 497 (1) Forbidden to give. Principles of PC: There were radically different reasons for cancellation and cancellation of bail. Strong and unusual grounds were needed for cancellation of bail. In the present case, the applicant failed to identify any of the reasons for canceling the bail. There was no allegation that the accused had misused the grant of bail granted to him by the trial court, or that some fresh facts were collected during the investigation by the police, which became the tendency to establish or identify them. Can To be found guilty of the provisions of section 497 (5) of the accused. CCP was by no means competent in nature; strong and unusual grounds were required for the cancellation of the bail. Once the bail is granted by the court of competent jurisdiction, it is satisfactory for its cancellation. Must be presented in the manner that the tort of the court family advocate from Chaininda lawyer