Section 497 (2) Conventional Code (XLV of 1860), Section 365B & 376 (ii) Abduction Guarantee, grant of further inquiry suspect was not named in the FIR and after seven and a delay his partner A lawsuit was filed. In those days, which made the prosecutor's story highly suspicious, the alleged kidnapper was handed over to his father by a panchayat, who appeared before the magistrate in connection with the alleged kidnapping. Sworn in, he did not make any allegations of kidnapping. Or the adultery against the accused kidnapper was not recovered from the possession of the accused Prima Fike, the application of Section 365B / 376 (ii), the PPC suspected to the extent that the accused was declared innocent by the investigating officer and His name was Placed in column 2 of the challan, although the police ipse dixit was not bound by the courts, but it contradicted the prosecution's version, which itself added to the matter further investigation. It was a legal and moral obligation to keep an accused in jail, simply because the accused's case falls under the Prohibition Clause of Section 497, CRPC and it was alleged that as long as no one was involved in the case. A reasonable basis does not exist. The rights of the prosecution should not be extended. And if there is any benefit to the doubt, it should go to the question of adultery or the kidnapping case was not proved during the investigation. The investigation of the case was completed, the police no longer needed the accused person, since accused 2 was behind bars. 6 Further imprisonment of the accused in 2009 will not serve any useful purpose of law, during the course of the trial.
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2010
