Section 497 of the Conduct Rule (XLV of 1860), Section 324/34 bail, denied the participant's contention in this case that his bail was present and stated that the co-accused was himself injured and his injuries. Since pressing. The record reference was made before the cross-case was passed by the High Court. In the pre-bail application, it will be deemed that the basis of the cross-case exists, but it was neither raised nor pressured. That would not be the case. In this regard, a new basis as far as the accused's case was concerned that there was no excuse for the law, it was considered that if the lawyer appearing for the accused in the first period of the bail plea, the cross case Without knowledge, it cannot be. The defendant's interpretation was beneficial, as it would be believed that when bail was requested in the first instance, the record was before the court, which was open for examination by the accused's lawyer. And there is always this reference in the record of the existence of a cross case, whether weak or strong, the accused sought bail on the basis of the principle of consistency, but in the circumstances of two cases of co-accused in which the bail was granted on the basis of cross case. Was done The matter of which he was injured and the accused is a matter of consummation shall not apply to the accused and he was not entitled to bail, either on a new land or on the basis of the principle of consistency dismissed the request for bail. Was gone
Related judgments — Peshawar High Court NWFP, 2009
