The Misguided Reliance on CCTV and CDR Evidence in Bail Proceedings

Pakistan’s criminal justice system exhibits a dangerous paradox when it comes to the use of modern forensic tools, particularly Closed-Circuit Television (CCTV) footage and Call Data Record (CDR) evidence. These forms of electronic evidence are either arbitrarily disregarded or, conversely, treated as irrefutable proof, depending on whose interest they serve. The judiciary’s erratic application of this evidence at both pre-arrest and post-arrest bail stages raises serious concerns about due process, fair trial rights, and judicial consistency.

When and Why Can a Judge Ignore CCTV and CDR Evidence?

The fundamental question is: when does the judiciary choose to disregard CCTV and CDR evidence? The answer, quite predictably, lies in the strategic convenience of the prosecution. When the evidence is tendered by the accused as exculpatory material, courts often relegate it to the realm of “inconclusive” or “unproven” evidence. This has been repeatedly demonstrated in multiple precedents:

1. 2021 YLR 2233 (Peshawar High Court – Mujtaba Hassan case) – The court ruled that CDR evidence without corroboration was “a weak type of evidence” and granted bail. This suggests that when the accused presents CDR evidence to establish innocence, it is suddenly not enough.
2. 2021 YLRN 140 (Karachi High Court – Abdul Shakoor Jamro case) – The court noted that CDR evidence merely showed calls made but “did not establish the purpose.” A convenient interpretation that benefits the accused in cases where law enforcement has failed to provide additional evidence.
3. 2021 YLRN 126 (Peshawar High Court – Muhammad Ashraf case) – The complainant’s shifting statements weakened the prosecution’s case, and the accused was granted bail. The case highlights the absurdity of a system that refuses to scrutinize the integrity of complainants’ allegations while insisting on impossible evidentiary thresholds for the accused.
4. 2024 PLD 1241 (Supreme Court – Saeed Ahmed case) – CCTV footage and bank records proved the accused was elsewhere at the time of the crime, yet the court needed police confirmation before considering the evidence. Why is an independent forensic record insufficient without police endorsement? The system is skewed against the accused, forcing them to meet an unrealistic burden of proof even at the bail stage.

When Does the Court Accept CCTV and CDR Evidence?

The judiciary, in its inconsistent wisdom, only finds CDR and CCTV evidence useful when it aids the prosecution. Consider the following cases:

1. 2021 SCMR 449 (Supreme Court – Kamran Attaullah case) – CDR and forensic data were treated as irrefutable proof of corruption, leading to the denial of anticipatory bail. Suddenly, the same “weak” and “inconclusive” evidence became “beyond susceptibility of human interference.”
2. 2023 MLD 1415 (Peshawar High Court – Muhammad Ejaz case) – CDR linking an accused to human trafficking was accepted without question, disregarding any potential challenges to the authenticity of the record.
3. 2022 PCrLJ 1442 (Islamabad – Muhammad Shahzad case) – The accused’s CDR presence near the crime scene was enough to cancel bail. Inconsistent application at its finest.
4. 2022 PCrLJ 1242 (Islamabad – Zakir Jaffer case) – CDR was used as “independent evidence” linking the accused to communication with the primary offender, despite questionable procedural handling of the data.
5. 2022 YLR 1024 (Islamabad – Hamza Sadaqat case) – Here, the accused was denied bail because, despite CDR allegedly proving he wasn’t at the scene, witness statements were deemed superior. This raises the question: why does unverified witness testimony hold more weight than forensic digital evidence?

A System Designed for Selective Justice

Pakistan’s criminal law system thrives on legal schizophrenia. When the accused presents CCTV footage or CDR logs to establish an alibi, the courts raise “authenticity concerns” and relegate the evidence to the realm of “mere suspicion.” However, when the prosecution relies on the same forensic tools, the judiciary suddenly deems them unimpeachable. This is not jurisprudence; it is judicial manipulation to maintain prosecutorial supremacy.

Moreover, this selective acceptance of electronic evidence creates a dangerous precedent where bail proceedings become an exercise in judicial discretion rather than a principled application of the law. Courts are not supposed to determine guilt or innocence at the bail stage, yet they routinely reject defense evidence under the pretext of requiring “trial-stage scrutiny” while simultaneously accepting prosecution evidence as conclusive.

Conclusion: The Need for a Coherent Standard

Pakistan’s judiciary must establish a uniform evidentiary threshold for bail proceedings. Either forensic evidence like CCTV and CDR is admissible at the bail stage for both prosecution and defense, or it is inadmissible for both. The current pick-and-choose approach is not only legally untenable but also ethically repugnant.

If the courts wish to treat CDR and CCTV as secondary evidence requiring corroboration, then this principle must apply universally—regardless of who presents it. Selective jurisprudence has eroded trust in the judicial system, turning pre-arrest and post-arrest bail into a tactical game rather than a legal right.

A justice system that operates with such glaring double standards is not a justice system at all—it is merely a legal theater where outcomes are scripted in favor of prosecutorial convenience. Until Pakistani courts rectify this hypocrisy, the criminal justice system will remain a farcical exercise in selective persecution rather than a mechanism for upholding the rule of law.

Appendix 1-Judicial Limitations on Considering CCTV and CDR Evidence in Pre-Arrest and Post-Arrest Bail: When Can It Be Accepted or Rejected?

Admissibility of CCTV and Call Data Record (CDR) Evidence in Bail Proceedings

A. Circumstances Where CCTV/CDR Evidence CANNOT Be Considered at Bail Stage

1. When the Evidence is Uncorroborated and Lacks Independent Support:
   • Pre-Arrest Bail (S. 498, Cr.P.C.): If the only evidence against an accused consists of Call Data Records (CDR) or CCTV footage without corroborative material, it is generally insufficient to refuse bail unless corroborated by direct evidence (2021 YLR 2233, Mujtaba Hassan v. State).
   • Post-Arrest Bail (S. 497, Cr.P.C.): Courts have repeatedly held that mere presence in a locality based on CDR or CCTV does not establish guilt and requires additional evidence (2021 YLRN 126, Muhammad Ashraf v. State).
2. When the Evidence is Forensically Unverified or Disputed:
   • CCTV Footage: It cannot be treated as conclusive evidence unless its veracity is confirmed through forensic analysis and authenticated sources (2019 PCrLJ 569, Arjamand Shahzadi v. State).
   • CDR Evidence: If no forensic verification exists, courts may disregard such evidence at the bail stage (2024 SCMR 205, Naveed Sattar v. State).
3. When the Evidence Alone is Insufficient to Establish Guilt or Presence at the Crime Scene:
   • CDR Evidence: Courts have held that call logs only indicate communication, not the content or purpose of the call, which requires further inquiry at trial (2021 YLRN 140, Abdul Shakoor Jamro v. State).
   • CCTV Footage: If footage is inconclusive or lacks a clear link to the accused, it cannot be the sole basis for denial of bail (2015 MLD 1661, Akhtar Ali Ghowada v. State).
4. When the Prosecution Relies Solely on CDR or CCTV Without Additional Incriminating Evidence:
   • If no direct or circumstantial evidence supports the claim, reliance on CDR alone for denying bail is unwarranted (2022 SCMR 2077, Shameem Bibi v. State).
5. When the Case Falls Under “Further Inquiry” (S. 497(2), Cr.P.C.):
   • Bail can be granted if the case requires further inquiry, and the evidence does not conclusively establish the accused’s role (2017 PCrLJ 1092, Mukhtar Ahmad v. State).
   • If an accused successfully raises a plea of alibi backed by CDR and CCTV footage, the case may warrant further inquiry, making bail more likely (2024 PLD 1241, Saeed Ahmed v. State).

B. Circumstances Where CCTV/CDR Evidence CAN Be Considered at Bail Stage

1. When the Evidence is Verified, Corroborated, and Forensically Confirmed:
   • CDR & Forensic Reports: If corroborated by other evidence, CDR can be relied upon to refuse bail (2021 SCMR 449, Kamran Attaullah v. State).
   • CCTV Footage: If authenticated through forensic examination, courts can rely on CCTV evidence for rejecting bail (2022 PCrLJ 1242, Zakir Jaffer v. State).
2. When the Accused is Directly Nominated in the FIR and the Evidence Supports the Allegations:
   • If CDR and CCTV footage corroborate witness statements, they can be considered as grounds to refuse bail (2023 MLD 1415, Muhammad Ejaz v. State).
3. When the Evidence is Used to Establish Active Participation in the Crime:
   • CDR Matching with Other Evidence: If CDR shows consistent communication with co-accused or the deceased, bail can be denied (2022 YLR 1024, Hamza Sadaqat v. State).
   • CCTV Capturing the Crime: If CCTV footage captures the accused committing the crime, bail is unlikely to be granted (2022 PCrLJ 1442, Muhammad Shahzad v. Muhammad Shahbaz).
4. When the Evidence Demonstrates Clear Presence or Conduct Contributing to the Offense:
   • If CDR shows presence at the crime scene at the time of the incident, bail may be refused (2022 SCMR 663, Chaudhry Nadeem Sultan v. State).
5. When the Accused Fails to Rebut the Prosecution’s Evidence at the Bail Stage:
   • If the accused does not challenge or provide an alternative explanation for the CDR or CCTV evidence, bail may be denied (2023 PCrLJN 96, Sher Ali v. State).

C. Application to (A) Prosecution and (B) Defence/Accused in Bail Proceedings

CCTV and CDR evidence play a crucial role in bail proceedings but are subject to verification and corroboration. Courts CANNOT consider such evidence when it is unverified, lacks independent support, or only raises suspicion. However, they CAN consider it when properly authenticated and directly linking the accused to the crime. The threshold for reliance on such evidence is higher in pre-arrest bail due to the presumption of innocence, while post-arrest bail requires a stronger justification to avoid prolonged detention.

Defence’s use of CDR/CCTV evidence to seek bail in pre-arrest and post-arrest bail proceedings:

1. Plea of Alibi Based on CDR/CCTV – Bail Granted

• 2024 PLD 1241 (Saeed Ahmed v. State) (Supreme Court)
  Facts: Accused provided CDR evidence showing that he was at a hospital at the time of the crime.
  Court’s Ruling: CDR was corroborated by ATM withdrawal records and CCTV footage from the hospital, confirming presence elsewhere.
  Legal Principle: Bail was granted as the evidence strongly supported the plea of alibi and the accused was not required for further investigation.
• 2022 SCMR 663 (Chaudhry Nadeem Sultan v. State) (Supreme Court)
  Facts: Accused was implicated in a murder case but provided CDR records showing his presence elsewhere.
  Court’s Ruling: CDR supported the plea of alibi, which was further corroborated by witness affidavits.
  Legal Principle: Bail was granted as the accused’s presence at the crime scene was doubtful, making it a case of further inquiry.
• 2021 YLRN 73 (Abdul Rasheed v. State) (Karachi High Court-Sindh)
  Facts: CDR of accused’s phone showed his location was far from the crime scene at the time of the incident.
  Court’s Ruling: CDR supported the plea of alibi, and the case required further inquiry under S. 497(2), Cr.P.C..
  Legal Principle: Bail granted as CDR cast doubt on the prosecution’s case.

2. Further Inquiry Under S. 497(2), Cr.P.C. Due to Unverified CDR/CCTV

• 2024 SCMR 205 (Naveed Sattar v. State) (Supreme Court)
  Facts: Prosecution relied only on CDR to establish the accused’s location, but there was no corroborating evidence.
  Court’s Ruling: CDR alone was not conclusive evidence and needed corroboration.
  Legal Principle: Bail was granted because the case fell under further inquiry.
• 2017 PCrLJ 1092 (Mukhtar Ahmad v. State) (Lahore High Court)
  Facts: CDR indicated the accused’s presence near the crime scene, but no direct evidence supported the claim.
  Court’s Ruling: Since no forensic verification was conducted, the case required further inquiry.
  Legal Principle: Bail granted due to the lack of forensic authentication of CDR.
• 2022 PCrLJ 1442 (Islamabad High Court) (Muhammad Shahzad v. Muhammad Shahbaz)
  Facts: The accused’s CDR location matched the crime scene, but no other evidence linked him to the murder.
  Court’s Ruling: Bail was granted as the CDR alone was insufficient without further corroboration.
  Legal Principle: CDR must be forensically verified to be relied upon at the bail stage.

3. CCTV Footage Requires Forensic Authentication Before Being Used to Deny Bail

• 2019 PCrLJ 569 (Arjamand Shahzadi v. State) (Lahore High Court)
  Facts: CCTV footage was used to implicate the accused, but forensic verification revealed two different versions of the footage.
  Court’s Ruling: Since the footage authenticity was disputed, it could not be relied upon for refusing bail.
  Legal Principle: Bail granted because CCTV evidence must be authenticated before it is relied upon in bail proceedings.
• 2015 MLD 1661 (Akhtar Ali Ghowada v. State) (Karachi High Court-Sindh)
  Facts: The accused was arrested based on CCTV footage, but no identification parade was conducted.
  Court’s Ruling: Bail granted because the CCTV evidence was inconclusive, requiring further inquiry under S. 497(2), Cr.P.C.
  Legal Principle: CCTV footage cannot be treated as gospel truth unless forensically verified.
• 2022 SCMR 2077 (Shameem Bibi v. State) (Supreme Court)
  Facts: Accused was implicated based on CDR and CCTV footage, but no further evidence supported the allegations.
  Court’s Ruling: CDR alone was insufficient; bail granted due to lack of corroboration.
  Legal Principle: Courts must conduct tentative assessment at the bail stage and not accept CDR or CCTV as definitive proof.

4. Bail Granted When CDR/CCTV is Unreliable, Unverified, or Used Without Additional Proof

• 2019 YLRN 50 (Ahmed Saqib v. State) (Lahore High Court)
  Facts: FIR was registered against unknown persons, and later CDR and CCTV were used to implicate the accused.
  Court’s Ruling: Since NADRA fingerprint verification did not match the accused, the case required further inquiry.
  Legal Principle: Bail granted because CDR & CCTV evidence must be corroborated by independent forensic analysis.
• 2022 PCrLJ 1242 (Zakir Jaffer v. State) (Islamabad High Court)
  Facts: CDR evidence showed that the accused was in contact with the main suspect, but no other evidence proved his involvement.
  Court’s Ruling: Bail granted as mere presence in CDR logs does not constitute criminal liability.
  Legal Principle: CDR must be accompanied by substantive evidence to justify denying bail.

CDR and CCTV evidence can be used by the defence to seek bail under the following circumstances:

1. When it establishes a plea of alibi – if corroborated by forensic evidence, bail is granted (2024 PLD 1241, 2022 SCMR 663).
2. When the case requires further inquiry – if CDR/CCTV lacks independent verification, courts grant bail (2024 SCMR 205, 2021 YLRN 73).
3. When CCTV footage is unauthenticated – if forensic reports show tampering or inconsistencies, bail is granted (2019 PCrLJ 569, 2015 MLD 1661).
4. When prosecution solely relies on CDR/CCTV without corroboration – courts require additional proof before denying bail (2022 SCMR 2077, 2022 PCrLJ 1242).

Thus, bail cannot be refused solely on CDR or CCTV evidence unless it is verified, corroborated, and directly links the accused to the crime.

⭑✧✦✧⭑════════════⭑✧✦✧⭑

At Josh and Mak International, we approach the law with the gravitas it deserves, understanding that every legal matter carries profound personal and ethical weight. Guided by principles of justice, fairness, and unwavering integrity, we see our role as more than advocates—we are stewards of our clients’ rights and aspirations. Our work is shaped by a commitment to excellence, meticulous attention to detail, and a deep respect for the dignity inherent in every legal challenge. With a steadfast focus on achieving equitable outcomes, we bring clarity to complexity and champion your cause with the insight and care it merits. Let us stand as your devoted partners in the pursuit of justice and peace.

Contact us at [email protected] for Legal Consultation.

https://joshandmakinternational.com/

⭑✧✦✧⭑════════════⭑✧✦✧⭑