Kashan Mehdi vs The State
This second post-arrest bail petition was filed under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 in respect of FIR No. 111/2018 registered under Sections 376, 364-A and 511 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station City Gilgit. The core legal question was whether contradictions in the statements of prosecution witnesses recorded during trial constitute a fresh ground for granting a second bail petition after the dismissal of the first one on merits. The Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court held that bail cannot be granted on the ground of contradictions in the statements of examined prosecution witnesses because deeper appreciation of evidence is impermissible at the bail stage. The petition was accordingly dismissed as devoid of merit, with a direction to the trial court to conclude the trial within three months, failing which the petitioner would be at liberty to approach the trial court afresh on the ground of statutory delay. The key principle laid down is that minor contradictions or discrepancies in witness testimonies cannot be evaluated deeply for the purpose of granting post-arrest bail.
- Whether contradictions in the statements of prosecution witnesses recorded at trial constitute a fresh ground for a second post-arrest bail petition?
- Can deeper appreciation of evidence be undertaken by a court at the bail stage?
- What is the remedy available to an accused if the trial is not concluded within the stipulated timeframe directed by the court?
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 376, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 364-A, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 511, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ALI BAIG, J.---This second bail petition has been filed by petitioner under Section 497 Cr.P.C. in case FIR No.111/2018, dated 23-09-2018, registered under Sections 376, 364-A and 511, P.P.C., at Police Station City Gilgit.
2. It is pertinent to mention here that the petitioner had earlier filed a bail petition in this Court which was dismissed by this Court vide bail order dated 28.09.2019 and while deciding the said bail petition, the learned trial court was directed to conclude trial of the case of the petitioner as expeditiously as possible.
3. Now, the petitioner has filed the instant bail petition on the sole ground that there are contradictions in the statements of two PWs recorded by the learned trial court.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the learned trial court has recorded statements of two PWs, namely Zahid Ali and Sher Abbas, which are contradictory to each other as well as to the contents of FIR; hence, the petitioner is entitled for concession of bail.
5. On the other hand, the learned Deputy Advocate General has vehemently opposed this petition by contending that earlier bail petition of Petitioner was dismissed by this Court on merits and no fresh grounds are available to petitioner; hence, this petition is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed.
6. I have heard arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the available record with their able assistance.
7. Perusal of record shows that the earlier bail petition of the petitioner has already been dismissed by this Court vide bail order dated 28-09-2019 and no fresh grounds are available to petitioner to file this second bail petition.
The sole fresh ground which has been agitated by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that there are contradictions in the statements of two PWs, whose statements have been recorded by the learned trial court.
8. It is settled law that bail cannot be granted to the accused on the ground of contradictions in the statements of examined prosecution witnesses as deeper appreciation of evidence is not permissible at bail stage, lest it may not prejudice the case of the either party during trial of case by the learned trial court; hence, this petition is not maintainable.
9. The result of above discussion is that this petition being devoid of merit is hereby dismissed. However, case against the petitioner is lingering on since 23.09.2018, therefore, the learned trial court and the prosecution is directed to conclude the trial of the case of petitioner within three months of the passing of this order and in case the learned trial court fails to conclude the case of the petitioner within stipulated period, the petitioner would be at liberty to file fresh bail petition in the trial court on the ground of delay. File.