Law: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)

Section: 497

Law: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)

Section: 302)(b),34

(a)    Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----S. 497---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302(b) & 34---Qatl-i-amd, common intention---Bail, grant of---Plea of alibi plausible---Allegations against the accused-petitioner was that he along with his co-accused committed murder of the brother of complainant by firing---In the present case, the petitioner raised a robust plea of alibi, contending that at the precise date and time of the alleged occurrence, he was not present at the scene of the crime---In support of his alibi, the petitioner furnished a comprehensive set of documentary and electronic evidence to substantiate his presence---Said evidence included, but was not limited to, the following: (1) mobile phone location data, which tracked his movements and confirmed his presence in S-(Swat); (2) entry records from the Check Post, which documented his vehicle's passage through the area; (3) CCTV footage and photographs obtained from a Guest House, capturing his presence at the premises; and (4) the guest register of the Guest House, which contained a verifiable entry of his stay along with CCTV video from the office of DPO, regarding his presence---Such pieces of evidence collectively formed a compelling case for the petitioner's absence from the scene of the alleged offense---Investigation Officer, acting diligently, collected and scrutinized the said evidence---To ensure its authenticity, the materials were subjected to forensic analysis by the Forensic Science Agency---Forensic examination yielded a critical finding that no traces of editing, tampering, or manipulation were detected in the submitted evidence, thereby lending significant credibility to the petitioner's claims---Verified evidence strongly supported the petitioner's contention that he was not present at the location where the offence allegedly occurred, casting substantial doubt on the prosecution's narrative---Given the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, it was evident that the petitioner s culpability could not be conclusively determined at this stage---Even otherwise, the challan in the case was almost complete and thus further custody of…