SHER ALAM Versus State
MALIK HAQ NAWAZ, C.J. ---The bail application of the present petitioner was declined by this Court on 31-10-2018 on merits. The instant bail petition has been filed by the learned counsel for the petitioner on fresh grounds after examination in chief of some witnesses recorded before the learned trial Court. The learned counsel for the petitioner/accused submitted that the statement under section 161, Cr.P.C. as well as the examination in chief recorded by the trial Court have material contradictions so, the evidence recorded is not sufficient to sustain conviction and the same is full of contradictions therefore the petitioner/accused may be released on bail. He submitted that the FIR has been lodged against the unknown persons but the complainant when failed to reach to the real culprits, he with the collusion of the I.O. falsely implicated the present petitioner in this case in order to remove this burden from their shoulders. The learned counsel for the petitioner/accused further submitted that the star witnesses do not directly nominate the petitioner/accused, so the case is fit for further inquiry in the meaning of section 497(2) of Cr.P.C. entitling the petitioner for grant of bail. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on 2017 PCr.LJ 400, 2005 PCr.LJ 739, 2004 PCr.LJ 677 Federal Shariat Court, 2001 PCr.LJ 710 and 2002 PCr.LJ 602.
2. On the other hand the learned Dy. A.G contested the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and submitted that the trial Court has not yet completed the trial and some material evidence i.e. PW Amir Khan/ father of deceased Mst. Naseem Begum is yet to be examined, in the circumstances the bail of the present petitioner/accused may not be granted. The learned Dy. A.G further submitted that there is sufficient evidence available with the prosecution in the shape of circumstantial evidence, which are so interlinked and devoid of any legal defect could be taken into account to tentatively asses as to whether there exists a prima-facie case against the petitioner or not. The learned Dy. A.G. further submitted that the petitioner is involved in an offence which carries the punishment of life imprisonment/death and falls within the prohibitory clauses of section 497, Cr.P.C. The learned Dy. A.G. relied on 2007 PCr.LJ 78 and 2002 SCMR 1986.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and also gone through the record of the case with their able assistance.
4. As evident from the judgment/order of the learned trial Court that only three PWs have been examined and some material witnesses are yet to be examined. The trial of the case is in progress and at this stage it is not proper to go into the deeper appreciation of evidence, which is the sole mandate of the trial Court. Any observation by this Court may prejudice the case of either party. There is no merit in the instant bail petition which is dismissed accordingly and the trial Court is directed to expedite the trial of the case. File.
ADN/28/GB Bail refused.