A special gender-based violence court has dismissed the third bail application of an accused in a rape case.
The accused, Rashid, has been charged with assaulting a minor girl in a house within the jurisdiction of the Gulistan-e-Jauhar police station in 2022.
An East additional sessions judge dismissed the bail plea of the accused, observing that he “failed to bring on record any valid fresh ground for grant of bail.”
The judge ruled: “Thus, the instant 3rd bail application of applicant/accused is dismissed having no valid fresh ground for grant of bail.”
Advocate Bahzad Akbar of the Legal Aid Society, who represented the complainant, opposed the bail application on the ground that no fresh ground had been agitated in the plea, requesting the court to dismiss it.
In its order, the court observed that the accused had moved the third bail plea on the fresh ground that as per his CDR location, he was in Malir Cantt at the time of the occurrence of the crime, and that he was a juvenile and had been behind the bars for last 27 months and therefore, being a juvenile offender and on statutory grounds, he was entitled to bail.
“In this context, I have carefully perused the material available on record and it is suffice to say that CDR locations are not conclusive piece of evidence to determine and establish the location of a person,” the judge noted, citing the Supreme Court’s judgment that held the mere production of CDR data without transcripts of the calls or end to end audio recording could not be considered/used as reliable evidence.
He also rejected the defence side’s argument about the accused being juvenile saying it was not supported by any documentary evidence.
The court said the complainant and victim had fully implicated the accused with the commission of the offence punishable under the Section 376 of the Pakistan Penal Code in their evidence recorded by this court. However, it added that further evidence and cross-examination of the complainant could not be conducted due to the accused frequently changing the counsel.
The judge said that the grounds raised by the defence lawyer could not be considered as fresh valid grounds.
