Articles 426 and 497 of the Criminal Procedure (XLV of 1860), section 302 (b) dismissed an application for suspension of the convicted AMD conviction or dismissed for non-prosecution after the suspension of the same sentence filed before this court. The fresh grounds laid down and the defendant and his accomplices were tried and convicted under Section 302 (b), PPC, against which they filed a petition for suspension of their sentence by a co-accused of the High Court. Before filing appeals, which was allowed and he was extended on bail, the accused filed his first application for suspension of sentence on that basis. The role attributed to him was similar to that of the co-accused, however, dismissing the application for illegal prosecution. The accused filed another application for suspension of his sentence on the basis of the consistency and consistency of the character, but was dismissed when the withdrawn accused filed his third application for suspension of sentence The rule of law allowed by the court since the role of the accused was similar to that of the accompanying participant and the principle of competence in his consistency principle was similar to that of the accused in the suspension of sentence. Was available to the accused at the time of filing his first application for, while discretion was not used in suspending the conviction of the accused. A. The state passed an unconstitutional order violating the law presented by the Adventist General Border in the state through Advocate General Border Central Zubair and 4 others (PLD 1986 SC 173), which provided that Later, the bail application will be lied to the same court. T
