Section 497 (5) Criminal Procedure (XLV of 1860), Section 324 Explosives Act (VI of 1908), Section 3 Explosion Attempt to commit murder, dismissal of lawsuit filed against unknown person During the interrogation, the mobile number traced was in the possession and occupation of the accused's brother, who was alleged that the detainee had told the mobile phone that the mobile number had been used by different persons. I can't be sure. Be made as to who was the real owner of the mobile, such a decision can be known only after recording evidence by the trial court that no final opinion on the explosives was made on the record because they Was unused No one was injured in the explosion Section 242424, PPC provisions, the trial court had to look at the appropriate stage, once the bail was granted, there must be strong and unusual reasons for its cancellation. the trial of this case was going on and was not concluded, in such a case, there was always a reluctance to interfere with the orders related to the bail matters, especially in the case where the trial was proceeding. To avoid discussing and commenting on the merits of the case related to the year 2006, and there was no positive progress in the trial, nothing was brought on the record that the accused had misused the bail exception here. Unless otherwise, there were various provisions of the CRPC, which were punishable by nature and there was no compulsion to cancel the bail, except in cases of bail approval and cancellation of bail, section 497 (5).
Related judgments — Supreme Court Azad Kashmir, 2014
