The powers of the applicant (complainant) to seek bond for the proceedings and proceedings were summoned by the Sessions Judge's question order, pursuant to sections 91 and 204 of the Contempt Code (XLV of 1860), section 302/34/109. The petition for dismissal of the respondents (accused) was dismissed because of the incident occurred in the year 2003 and the complainants were summoned by the trial court on the complaint of the applicant, who, under section 91/204. CRPC filed a bail plea on Luqman Ali v. Hazaro and another (2010 SCMR 611), upholding the rule of law set by the Supreme Court. The decision to grant the defendants' custody in 2010 was a further challenge to the decision on the reliability of the applicant's lawyer. Even the Supreme Court, otherwise, the respondents were summoned in 2004 when the verdict was not in the field and the decision was not mentioned as to whether it would have any precedent or not. Permission was then to re-examine the entire process of the previous years up to 2004, in all cases arising out of the complaint and such action would not only be against the guns of the secure administration. Instead of criminal justice, these cases will add more burden to the plea of the courts and accordingly the legal justification was rejected. \ r \ n
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2012
