Section 497 (5) of the Conduct Rule (XLV of 1860), section 302/429/109/34 bail, the cancellation of the order of non-bailable bail granted by the trial court was not based on valid legal implication and the charges were directly named. Medical evidence was filed by the complainant in his preliminary report, which was filed in the joint intention of his co-accused prosecution case to commit the murder of his brother one day. Was supported and had only fourteen years of lengthy and illicit proceedings, with the trial court proceeding to extend the accused on bail. Such a verdict was invalid and his partner was acquitted at trial and was declared unnecessary under the law because he declared the prosecution's case prejudicial before section 497 (1) of the case. Was. The acceptance of bail and the appreciation and conclusion of evidence for offenses punishable by up to 10 years in prison or imprisonment is a special trial case that cannot be expected at the bail-out stage. Due to a breach of the law, he has lost some of his usual rights under legal proceedings and his notable fugitives were relieved of their concession on bail despite the fact. His co-accused was acquitted by the trial court; granting a co-accused a bail on the basis of isolation for his co-accused's conviction would be equivalent to an order to acquit an accused before the trial and then a trial. The hearing will only become formal then, at the bail-out stage, the court has to consider the case of the first case against the accused and the contents of the record available
Related judgments — Peshawar High Court NWFP, 2009
