Article 497 (5) of the Contempt of Conduct (XLV of 1860), Constitution of Sections 302 and 34 of Pakistan, Article 185 (3). While denying bail on the charges related to the co-accused, the High Court admitted accepting the arrest warrant for the accused on the post that he was not named in the FIR for the alleged murder. And, six days after the alleged incident, the accused's name was presented as an offender under a statement made by the complainant under Section 161, CCPC, the High Court admitted to guaranteeing the accused equal Was relied upon by the High Court for. An application has been made in the case of this co-accused, whose pre-arrest request for arrest was rejected by the same High Court judge, observing that in his statement under Section 161, CRPC This was mentioned by the complainant and other witnesses by the. The co-accused of the murder and that the aforementioned co-accused was said to have an effective role in injuring the victim, which is alleged to have been made by medical evidence and other accomplices along with the co-accused. The allegations were the same. And the circumstances in which the two were involved in the present case were also not different, thus, it was surprising that the co-judge was denied bail after the arrest of the same judge who chaired the High Court. I confessed to posting the arrest warrant for the judge, with different defendants adopting controversial methods of assigning almost identical roles,
