The Section 497 Prevention Code (XLV of 1860), Section 420/406 bail, was natural for the complainant's explanation for the filing of the FIR with a delay of eight months (in the odd case of this case). Legal action was justified) try to get the accused and the appropriate time to do the required work and when he eventually came to the conclusion that he was cheated and his trust was violated, A large number of FIRs are filed and delays in such a situation cannot be detrimental to them. At the bail-out trial, the jail was behind bars for the past seven months and the crime was not covered by the prohibition clause of Section 497, CR PC, yet Ole's approval was an arbitrary relief for which The circumstances could have been considered and the court may refuse to use this discretion in favor of the accused, if it turns out that the alleged crime has caused serious harm to the complainant. The ad not only betrayed and deceived the complainant's confidence, but it did so to the detriment of his financial status as well as his well-being and peaceful financial life. Irreparable harm. Although this case did not fall under the prohibited clause of section 497 (1), the case did not fall under the prohibition clause of section 497 (1), although if charged under certain circumstances, it cannot be a guarantor of a non-bailable offense. Yes, CCP Bell was denied the accused accordingly.
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2009
