Case Details

Citation(s)
2025 SLG 5280 2025 SLD 5280 = 2025 SCMR 1657
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Criminal Petition No. 239 of 2025, decided on 15th April, 2025. (Against the order/judgment dated 17.02.2025 passed by the Islamabad High Court, Islamabad in Crl. Misc. No. 265 of 2025).
Present: Muhammad Hashim Khan Kakar and Ishtiaq Ibrahim, JJ
Raja Rizwan Abbasi, Advocate Supreme Court and Syed Rifaqat Hussain Shah, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner. Ms. Chand Bibi, Deputy Prosecutor General and Ishaq, SI for the State. Date of hearing: 15th April, 2025.

NDUKWE UDOKA PETER ---Petitioner

VERSUS

The STATE and another ---Respondents

Law: Criminal Procedure Code, 1898

Section: 497(2)

Law: Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997

Section: 9(b)

Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973

Section: 185(3)

 

Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---

----S. 497(2)---Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), S. 9(b)--Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 185(3)---Possession of narcotic substance---Bail, grant of---Further inquiry---Perusal of the contents of the FIR showed that 680grams heroin was allegedly recovered from the possession of petitioner---Record showed that, despite the existence of spy information, no independent witness was present to witness the purported recovery and no video was produced to substantiate the allegation of the narcotic being recovered from the petitioner's possession---In addition to the petitioner's detention, his companion was also apprehended on the same charges---Petitioner's counsel in support of his contention also placed on record the CCTV footage and photographs in this matter---This case warranted judicial scrutiny for the purpose of determining bail due to its distinctive facts and circumstances---Petitioner's consistent allegations of false implication, alleged prior harassment, confiscation of CCTV evidence, absence of independent witnesses and the prompt filing of complaints before Senior Police Officials suggested that the case warranted further investigation--Moreover, the quantity recovered, although substantial, did not reach commercial levels and raid was not conducted in the presence of neutral witnesses or substantiated by any video evidence---Petition was converted into an appeal and allowed and petitioner was granted post-arrest bail.

🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register