The attempt to compel Section 497 (2) of the Conduct Rule (XLV of 1860), section 324/34, to exploit the grant of further inquiries, was not under the law to guarantee a deep appreciation of the evidence at the bailout stage. And only to look at the bird's eye, but the bail plea could not be decided on the record The temporary experience of the record shows that initially, there was no suitable material available to make sure The accused committed a crime that happened under the ban. Clause 497, the accused's intention to kill the complainant in PPC was not available in this case, especially when after sustaining the gunshot wound, the complainant fell and at the mercy of the accused Yes, but despite having a deadly weapon, Kalashnikov, the complainant stopped repeating his action on receipt of solitary firearms on the leg, indicating that the accused had no intention of hitting. Otherwise they would not have shot at his leg, the shootings were attributed to the three accused, while the complainant had only one shot in the face of his leg Prima, Section 324, during the application of PPC. The case was underway. And it appears that the case of the accused includes the provisions of Sections 337A, 337D and 337F of the PPC which otherwise, either do not fall under the section 497, CRPC prohibition clause or guarantee in nature. And some related to penalties as well as penal proceedings / crimes, when a felony is also punished, the defendant will be entitled to bail as a matter of fact, because if the case goes to trial
Related judgments — Quetta High Court Balochistan, 2011
