Section 497 Prohibition (Enforcement) Order (4 of 1979), Sections 3 and 4 of the possession of bail, failure to appear in the trial, prosecution witnesses' testimony, large quantities of alcohol were recovered from the accused Despite the RR allegations, no witness of the prosecution appeared before the trial court despite the issuance of a non-bailable warrant, which was taken by the accused that he had been detained for the last ten months and the trial was not concluded. As far as allegations of bail are concerned, but without any prejudice to the case, as far as the issue of bail is concerned, the Supreme Court had previously held that if the police were not interested in the current case, then what would be their status? ? As far as other criminal cases pending in the relevant courts, there are two possibilities, either the case against the accused was a liar and no prosecution came. The ward of the evidence or the accused was an influential person and persuaded the prosecution's witnesses not to dismiss him, so that he could arrange his bail or eventually be acquitted of the court, clearly enough alcohol from the accused's possession. Was recovered and the court was arrested in this case. He was taking full interest in the settlement of the case but it was the prosecution that led to the obstruction of the same court's settlement. The district police officer was instructed to comply with the trial court's order and to present all the police officers who were such in the trial court. On the next date of hearing, the court's witnesses further directed the district police officer to make such report. Present which shows why such a witness was reluctant to appear in the trial court
