Sections 497 of the Code of Conduct (XLV of 1860), Sections 302 and 34 Ktal Um, joint intention bail, were denied within 45 minutes of the incident in which the report was denied in the case when the complainant himself witnessed the incident. The fragrance of fresh substance from the presence of the cross version also yielded 16 shrubs of 7 62 bores, indicating self-defense, and when records show, it was not known who attacked. And who worked in self-defense, parties were generally allowed to bail. But in the present case, the position was different, as no such case could be collected, except that, except for the cross-FIR, the incident was recognized by the accused when the evidence of the prosecution, initially. But the accused was linked to the commission of the crime, the death penalty. And he himself admitted the incident by requesting a cross-version, then only cross-FIR would not be accepted as a bail-out license. Each cross-case accused could not claim bail. Every cross case had its facts. Temporarily scrutinized and examined; and then judged on its own merits, the participating company was designated as an accused when it was acquitted while accused of committing the victim's murder. Was charged, the partner was not equal to the accused, the accused was charged. Exemption in bail under the rule of consistency, in the circumstances charged with which the offense was linked, was not entitled to release on bail.
Related judgments — Peshawar High Court NWFP, 2014
