Attempts to compel Section 497 of the Conduct Rule (XLV of 1860), Sections 302, 324, 337A (i), 337F (II), 403, 147, 148 and 149 of Qatil Um, which led to Shuja. A secret, misconduct, dishonest use of property, riots, joint bail bail, council grant for the accused did not deny involvement of the accused at the crime scene. But his role in the FIR was ordinary and nothing special. No accused had hurt the deceased. Two people were washed away and four people were injured in the incident. In this case, the accused was responsible for his role in hurting the prosecution's witnesses, but not for hurting the second FIR of the two defendants listed by the accused, at which time the incident was the same. No, after being canceled, it cannot be said that there were counter-cases, but the cross version and the first FIR mentioned above After the ER was filed and the time of the incident was disclosed prior to the alleged first FIR, the conviction can only be investigated, and deep appreciation was not justified. The accused could not be prosecuted because the witnesses testified that the injured persons could be sentenced to lesser jail terms. Over 7 years, most of them two years. No injury was specifically attributed to any particular accused, it was alleged that they submitted their case for grant of bail, the accused was admitted in bail, under the circumstances.
Related judgments — Karachi High Court Sindh, 2013
