2017 PLP 171 (YLRN)

MALIK HAQ NAWAZ, J.

This bail petition has been directed against the judgment of learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Chilas, District Diamer dated 14.12.2016 and the petitioner has knocked the door of this Court by filing a bail application bearing No. Cr. Misc. 208/2016 in second round.

2. It is pertinent to mention here that earlier bail application bearing Cr. Misc. No.103/16 was declined by me on 28-07-2016. Para-7 of the judgment handed down by me in above referred Cr. Misc. is re-produced as under:-- "I have heard the arguments and perused the record of the case, and the statement of driver of the vehicle namely Asbar Khan. The alleged abductee categorically charged the petitioner for commission of the offence. The mere fact that some of the accused nominated in the FIR have been released by the Police under section 169, Cr.P.C., will not advance the case of petitioner for grant of bail. As evident from record that the accused went underground after commission of offence and was arrested from Abbotabad by the local Police. The accused has criminal credential as case under section 302/34, P.P.C. was registered against him vide FIR No. 19/96, which is pending adjudication in the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Diamer."

3. While disposing of the above mentioned bail petition in Para-9 of the judgment, trial Court was directed to conclude the trial within shortest possible time. From the perusal of order sheets of the trial Court it reveals that from 15-08-2016 to 10-12-2016, no coercive steps were taken by the trial Court, although necessary direction have been issued by this Court for execution of summon/warrants issued by the trial Court and not compiled by the executing agency. The trial Court is once again directed not to hesitate to initiate any action against any delinquent officer, who become tool in the hands of either parties and hamper proceedings of the Courts.

4. As evident from the order of this Court the petitioner was refused bail mainly on the ground that the driver of the jeep namely Asbar Khan has specifically charged the petitioner/accused for his abduction. It is strange to note that on 03-10-2016 PW Shah Fareed and PW Asbar Khan were present but were not examined. On 12-11-2016 PW Shah Fareed was examined while PW Asbar Khan was abandoned. One wonder that when PW Shah Fareed was declared hostile then what was the logic behind to abandon a star witness, on whose statement the whole case of prosecution was hinges on. The attitude of District Public prosecutor is depreciated, had he gone through the orders of this Court dated 28-07-2016, he should not have dared to do so. No doubt that it is sole prerogative of the prosecution to produce/abandon any witness but when a star witness is abandoned without assigning any cogent and convincing reasons, then the presumption under Article 129(g) of Qanun-e-Shahadat 1984 will go against the prosecution and withholding of best evidence will be presumed to be a malice and sinister attempt on the part of complainant/State functionaries.

5. In view of the above discussion the case of the petitioner has become one of the further inquiry under section 497(2), Cr.P.C. The petitioner is admitted to bail subject to furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs. 10,000,00/-(ten lac) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned Judicial Magistrate, Chilas.

6. The petition is disposed of in the above terms. WA/2/GB Bail granted.