Section 497 (2) Code of Conduct (XLV of 1860), Section 395 Duty Guarantee, grant of further investigation into filing FIR without explanation, kidnapping charge along with his accomplices, cash, mobile sets and snatching a vehicle Was accused of. The FIR was filed by the complaining party with an eight-day delay without any clear explanation. The delay in filing the FIR merely stated that it had informed a minor about the incident. What, then, he contacted the accused but the complainant was held on false hopes, and eventually the complainant filed an FIR, in which case a consultation and consultation decision cannot be ruled out. During the commission of the alleged crime, the complainant claimed to have identified the two culprits with his car's headlights, which proved that the suspect was already known to the complainant, who was involved in such incidents shortly after the incident. He should have approached the police station, which was a situation 5 to 6 km away from the scene of the incident where the alleged crime was maximum punishment as well as the minimum sentence conviction, the court even more so. The minimum penalty can also be considered in Section 395, PPC, at the stage of bail, as well as the maximum penalty. Provided (minimum) imprisonment of not less than 4 years, the accused is admitted on bail
Related judgments — Karachi High Court Sindh, 2014
