NDUKWE UDOKA PETER Versus State
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the Islamabad High Court, which had dismissed the petitioner's application for post-arrest bail in a narcotics case. The petitioner was arrested for the alleged possession of 680 grams of heroin. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the specific evidentiary challenges raised, including the lack of independent witnesses, the absence of video substantiation of the recovery, and allegations of false implication. Upon review, the Court found that the case warranted further inquiry due to the lack of neutral witnesses and the existence of conflicting evidence, such as CCTV footage and photographs, which cast doubt on the prosecution's version. Consequently, the Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's order, and granted bail to the petitioner. The key principle laid down is that where the recovery of narcotics is not witnessed by independent persons and is unsupported by corroborative video evidence, the case qualifies as a matter for further inquiry under the proviso to Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, justifying the grant of bail.
- Does the absence of independent witnesses during a narcotics recovery warrant the grant of post-arrest bail?
- Can a case be considered one of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when the prosecution fails to produce video evidence of the recovery?
- Is the existence of conflicting evidence, such as CCTV footage, a valid ground for granting bail in narcotics cases?
- Article 185(3), Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973
- Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
MUHAMMAD HASHIM KHAN KAKAR, J.--- Through this petition for leave to appeal under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, the petitioner, Ndukwe Udoka Peter, has challenged the order dated 17.02.2025 passed by the Islamabad High Court whereby his petition for post arrest bail was dismissed.
2. The petitioner was arrested on 08.01.2025 by the Islamabad Police at G-10 Markaz, Islamabad pursuant to spy information indicating his involvement in narcotics trafficking. At the time of arrest, 680 grams of heroin was allegedly recovered from his possession.
3. We have reviewed the available record and heard learned counsel for the parties. Our findings indicate 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 narcotics being recovered from the petitioner's possession. In addition to the petitioner's detention, his companion was also apprehended on the same charges. The learned counsel in support of his contention also placed on record the CCTV footage and photographs in this matter. This case warrants judicial scrutiny for the purpose of determining bail due to its distinctive facts and circumstances. The 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 suggest that this is a case that warrants further investigation. Moreover, the quantity recovered, although substantial, does not reach commercial levels and was not conducted in the presence of neutral witnesses or substantiated by any video evidence.
4. In view of the above, this petition is converted into an appeal and allowed by setting aside the impugned order. The petitioner is granted bail subject to the provision of bail bonds in the sum of Rs.200,000/ - with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court as the present case qualifies as an exception under the proviso to section 497(2) Cr.P.C.
JK/N-2/SC Appeal allowed.