HAMZA KHAN vs The STATE
This matter concerns a post-arrest bail petition filed by the petitioner, Hamza Khan, who was charged under Articles 3 and 4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979, following the recovery of 6100 grams of opium from a motorcycle he was operating. The petitioner sought bail after the Sessions Judge/Judge Anti-Narcotics, Ghizer, previously rejected his application. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given that the trial had commenced and the prosecution witnesses had been examined. The petitioner argued that the witnesses did not support the prosecution's case. The Court, upon reviewing the evidence, noted that while the witnesses supported the prosecution in their examination-in-chief, they provided conflicting statements during cross-examination regarding the recovery. However, the Court held that since the trial was nearing completion and there was sufficient prima facie evidence connecting the petitioner to the offense, the request for bail was not justified. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition, emphasizing that the trial court's ongoing proceedings and the nature of the evidence did not warrant the grant of bail at this stage.
- Does the fact that prosecution witnesses made contradictory statements during cross-examination automatically entitle an accused to bail?
- Is bail appropriate when the trial of the accused is nearing completion?
- Can a court grant bail if there is sufficient prima facie evidence connecting the accused to the offense?
- Article 3, Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order 1979
- Article 4, Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order 1979
MUHAMMAD ALAM, J.---Petitioner, who is involved for the offences of Articles 3/4 of Prohibition of (Enforcement of Hadd) Order 1979, booked through FIR No,03/2015 of Police Station Imit Ishkoman, District Ghizer, seeks his release on bail, through this petition. Previously, petitioner sought similar facility from the court of Sessions Judge/Judge Anti-Narcotics Ghizer, through B.A. No,18/15, who, through his order dated 20-05-2015, refused to grant the same facility.
2. Brief background of prosecution story of occurrence is that, on the day of occurrence, petitioner was driving his motor-cycle in the Ishkoman valley, and when the same reached at the place of occurrence, the police of Police Station Imit, who had already blocked road and were conducting search of all vehicles plying on the said road, stopped the same and found that Mr. Chirag, co- accused of petitioner, who was on board the said motor-cycle, had a bag in between himself and the petitioner. Police searched the said bag and recovered opium weighing 6100 grams. After completing preliminary proceedings, police chalked FIR of the occurrence.
3. I have heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned Deputy Advocate General. Learned counsel for petitioner mainly argued that the trial court has so far examined three PWs and none of them are supporting the prosecution story of occurrence. On the other hand, learned Deputy Advocate General argued that there is sufficient prima facie evidence connecting petitioner with the occurrence, if we assess the available prosecution evidence tentatively.
4. I have thoughtfully considered arguments advanced by the learned counsel for petitioner and learned Deputy Advocate General.The admitted state of affairs is that trial of the case has commenced and the learned trial court has so far recorded statements of at least three PWs.
Learned counsel for petitioner mainly argued that in their statements PWs so far examined are not supporting prosecution version. In support of the same plea, learned counsel for petitioner presented photo copies of statements of three PWs, so far examined by trial court. In their statements all the three PWs have supported prosecution version, but PWs 2 and 3, who are witnesses to the recovery memo, have supported prosecution version in the examination in chief part of their statements and have stated a single sentence, that police did not recover opium from the accused in their presence, in answer to single question in cross-examination. So the trial of the petitioner and his co-accused is nearing completion, therefore, I am not inclined to grant this petition. Petition dismissed. This file be consigned to record.