Section 497 (2) of the Conduct Rule (XLV of 1860), Sections 380 and 457/34 bail, further investigation grants, although nominated in the FIR, were temporarily examined by the court on the basis of available records, two The eyewitnesses, mentioned in the FIR, did not paint during the commission of the crime at midnight, when they could have tried to catch the suspects very easily or at least be tinted, but they Didn't do that. On the eve of the story narrated in the FIR, the two said witnesses were not present, in which case, the stolen articles were fabricated and fabricated, which were ordinary commercial goods and domestic articles such as the FIR. Rs 1,50,000 is mentioned in the AR, but the cost of recovering the accused from the stolen articles was Rs. 18,000, the remaining stolen articles could also be easily recovered from the accused's house, which is why the case of litigation. The suspect had also become an FIR. The marriage accused and his accomplice were investigated on the basis of footmarks, but no mark expert was ever presented as a witness when two eyewitnesses to the incident committed the crime. Pointed out, then practically no need to be involved. The entire storytelling service described in the FIR was a convicted and unreliable case, alleging that he had committed more of his crime. Investigated, he was admitted on bail, under the circumstances
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2009
