Attempts to revoke Section 497 (5) and 498 Criminal Procedure (XLV of 1860), Section 324/34 pre-arrest bail, the court in its designated order on the site plan, in the absence of independent witnesses Had also discussed. As the order of non-cooperation shows that the investigating officer did not recover the blood on the spot and no vacancies were recovered, the trial court discussed the matter in detail, which was valid during the bail phase. And thus the court assumed its duty as follows: The role of the trial court was generally not interfered with in the bail granted by the court of competent jurisdiction until it could find that the grant of bail was granted. The established principles have been violated; bail can only be considered prior to arrest when it is proved that the involvement involved in this case. The accused was malicious by the principles of the prosecution for his acceptance and cancellation of the bail, for the bail cancellation were quite different from each other, the truant and extraordinary grounds were required by the complainant in the present case. Was successful in establishing grounds that were strong in nature, presented by the complainant on the basis of a deep appreciation of the evidence which could not be taken at the bail-out stage and was related only to the trial. The court below had committed a serious error in confirming the defendant's pre-arrest bail and due to the abortion of justice, the controversial order confirming the pre-arrest bail to the accused was returned. Was called,
Related judgments — Peshawar High Court NWFP, 2010
