Section 395 Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Article 185 (3) The bail plea for cancellation of bail was rejected by the trial court after the arrest, but on appeal the High Court found the accused guilty under the impugned order and the applicant. Bail granted. The complainant filed a petition in the Supreme Court for cancellation of bail. The accused's name was mentioned in the FIR and his identity was identified by the complainant at the headlight of the vehicle. One was injured and one was injured. The specific role, under which circumstances the accused was assigned, was fully supported by the injured and the witnesses in their statements under Section 161, CRPC, but there is no doubt that the FI There was a delay in filing an R, but the complainant tried to explain the delay, however, which was not enough to pass the self-guarantee, unless supported by the OO. An explanation of the delay in filing the FIR initially submitted by the complainant can be examined by the trial court at the appropriate stage when the evidence was filed in this case and the specific circumstances of the case, in this case. Specific situations also required in-depth scrutiny. The evidence, which could not be made at the bail-out stage, had sufficient grounds to suggest that the accused was involved in the case, to prove that the High Court's writ of bail was dropped, and permission was granted Was.
