Volume 497 of the Contempt Code (XLV of 1860), voluntarily hurt in the execution of Section 394 robbery, denial of the accused's name, no doubt, was not mentioned in the FIR, but in the identification parade it was corrected. As raised, it showed no enmity. There was no reason to falsely implicate the commission in the crime between the parties and the complainant. It appeared that the accused's name was not mentioned in the FIR, but a specific role was assigned to the suspect, who shot the injured directly and later picked up the person in the identity parade. Went because the person fired. The offense against the injured accused was a felony, and his lawyer could not lay any basis for bail privileges. On reasonable grounds it was available to believe that the accused had committed the crime and he had failed in view of the nature and facts and circumstances of the crime. Request dismissed
Related judgments — Karachi High Court Sindh, 2010
