Although the pre-arrest bail, Section 364/148/149 pre-arrest bail, the accused's grant was designated with a specific role in the FIR, but the facts and circumstances of the case proved that. That the accused were not involved in the abduction. The complainant's sister, as there was a nine-month delay in filing the FIR after the alleged kidnapping, was unsure whether the accused was the person who kidnapped her complainant. Had applied to the Justice of Peace for registration. A criminal case was registered against the suspects and none of the current accused were produced, which means that when filing a petition before the Justice of Peace, it had convicted the present accused of the crime. Was not involved in the commission. Or indirect evidence was on record that could link the current accused to the commission of the crime, no eyewitness account of the incident was available. On record, two investigations were conducted in this case, which led to the first suspects in the first investigation. He was convicted, but in the second investigation he was found guilty when there was a difference of two investigations, then none of the investigations could be relied upon. Nothing can be determined about the culprits or the innocents of the accused and there is a family dispute between the two sides and the civil litigation was also met by the complainant against the present accused, Malala's plea. Under the circumstances, it was quite a matter of getting inside the accused. The purpose of further investigation into his crime was to allow his ad-hoc pre-arrest bail.
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2009
