Sections 302 and 392 of the Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Section 21A Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Arts 199 and 9 Qatel AMD and the Dacoity Constitutional Appeal Intra-Court of Appeals Central Jail to be charged with expelling the accused Police encounter appellants, who arrested that their death could have been involved in a false police encounter, prayed in a constitutional petition that authorities could be barred from appealing to the Central Jail, by a single judge. Appeals can be prevented from excluding appeals. In the High Court, the appellants filed an Intro-Court Appeal. The Judge Single Judge had discussed the lawyer's arguments for the appellant in detail and stated that the counsel for the appellant had failed to disclose any such law. Which gave the High Court the power to prevent the appellant from being removed. Jail for the purpose of investigation. And they instructed the authorities to take the precautionary measures of a single High Court judge, in which case Article 9 of the Constitution guaranteed the security of the individual, but where the authorities were operating under the parameters of the law and simply Are taking on legal responsibility. They could not be barred from the court's order and, on the basis of mere arrest allegations by the appellant's lawyer, the High Court declared that the officer responsible should avoid any untoward incident or police encounter. Appellants were claimed to be required for the purpose of investigation, which investigation could not be barred by the arrest of the appellants, whose purpose was to collect evidence in the absence of any reason for interference in the intra-court appeal. , Delete it
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2010
