The CRPC has seized Rs 200,000 in favor of the state while accepting the application under section 265 for the abduction or immunity for immunity, Article 199 abduction or immunity for property, valuable security, etc. Was allegedly paid by the complainant as a ransom for the release of his abducted son and which was later recovered from the suspect during the investigation and now he is the complainant. The settlement was settled outside the court, he said that some settlement had been made outside the courts. It was revealed that the complainant and his accompanying witnesses had apologized to the accused while denying the prosecution's case, and the trial court had directed both parties to investigate. Refused to examine the truth of the complainant's statements and o justified the defendant's claim in relation to the alleged receipt of the ransom money from the complainant during the examination by witnesses during the examination. There was no opportunity to do so, which also indicated that he would have to pay the accused to pay for them. Opportunity was lost, could not survive through constitutional petition. It was alleged that the applicant was trying his luck instead of following the law. The impugned order was valid and based on rational reasons and was not subject to any illegal interference. The constitutional application was dismissed under the circumstances.
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2011
