According to the complainant's own disclosure in Section 497 (2) of the Conduct Code (XLV of 1860), Section 302/148/149 shortage of bail, further investigation, the accused was left empty-handed at the relevant time. The accused in this case was Lalkara, but attributing it to Lalikara was not only an allegation, but also to be seen by his co-accused, though it was in fact the nature of Lalkara, if at all, Therefore, the investigating officer said that the accused and other accomplices were not present on the spot at the time of the incident, even though Ipse dixit police Although the court was not obliged, but it was a relevant circumstance to be considered while granting a bail or otherwise while questioning, in such cases the accused was certainly involved or involved and in any case suspicious. The place would be left to take advantage of, even at the bailout stage, the accused was to be given to Costu. Determination of the accused's responsibility or the culprit's responsibility in the case was to be at trial, in the circumstances covered under section (2) of section 497, the CCP demanding further investigation of his crime. Imposed that he was behind bars. In the last four months and since his case was one of the investigations of his crime, he was entitled to bail as a right and no unnecessary accused could be detained, Was successful in making the case, in the circumstances, admitted on bail
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2010
