Ikram Ullah Versus State
Order
Ali Baig, C.J .--- The Petitioner/accused has filed the instant petition under section 497 Cr.P.C. seeking post arrest bail in criminal case bearing FIR No. 88/2025 for the offence under section 9, (1) 3(C), CNSA 1997 registered at Police Station Jutial District Gilgit.
1.(sic) The brief facts of the case as narrated in the FIR are that on 04.05.2025 at about 1230 hours, on spy information the local police of PS Jutial Gilgit have arrested the petitioner/accused and recovered 1120 grams contraband charas from his possession near GPO Chowk. Resultantly the above mentioned FIR was registered against the petitioner/accused.
1.(sic) After registration of the above referred FIR the concerned IO started investigation of the case and after completion of usual investigation, he got committed the accused/petitioner to judicial custody at Gilgit. The present petitioner/ accused had filed an application under section 497 Cr.P.C before the learned trial Court/Special Judge CNSA Gilgit for grant of post arrest bail. The learned trial court/Special Judge CNSA Gilgit after hearing arguments on behalf of both the parties has dismissed the bail application filed by the present petitioner/accused, vide order dated 27.05.2025 passed in B.A No. 266/2025.
2. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order passed by the learned trial Court, the present petitioner/accused has filed the instant bail petition before this Court seeking his enlargement on bail in the above mentioned criminal case.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner/accused submitted that the police have lodged the above mentioned FIR against an innocent person who has no previous criminal record as such petitioner/ accused has falsely been implicated in the instant case by the police. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the alleged recovery has been effected on a busy road but there is no private witness which is clear violation of the mandatory provisions of section 103 Cr.P.C and there is no video recording of recovery which makes the case of prosecution doubtful and calls for further inquiry. The learned counsel for the petitioner/ accused further submitted that prosecution has failed to submit challan of the case before the trial Court within the mandatory period of 14 days. The learned counsel for the petitioner/ accused further submitted that the offence under section 9 (1) 3 (C) does not fall within the ambit of prohibitory clause of section 497 Cr.P.C. The learned counsel for the petitioner/accused lastly submitted that the investigation of the case is complete and the petitioner/accused is no more required for further investigation, hence, the instant petition may be allowed and petitioner/accused may be released on bail to meet the ends of justice. The learned counsel for the petitioner/accused has relied upon judgments of superior Courts reported as 2016 PCr.LJ 730 Peshawar, 2025 SCMR 721, 2011 PCr.LJ 1200 Karachi and 2016 PCr.LJ 1315 Islamabad.
5. On the other hand the learned DAG vehemently opposed the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner/ accused and submitted that the FIR has been promptly lodged wherein specific role has been attributed to the accused /petitioner. The learned DAG further contended that a huge quantity of contraband Charas has been recovered from the possession of petitioner/accused in presence of marginal private witnesses. The learned DAG further submitted that the offence is against the society and falls within the ambit of prohibitory clause of section 497 Cr.P.C, hence, the petitioner/accused is not entitled for concession of bail. The learned DAG lastly, submitted that the judgment/order passed by the learned trial Court is well reasoned and result of correct appreciation of law and material available on record, hence the instant bail petition may be dismissed to meet the ends of justice.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and also gone through the available record of the case with their able assistance.
7. Perusal of contents of FIR it appears that the petitioner/accused was arrested on the basis of spy information and allegedly recovered 1120 grams contraband Charas from the petitioner/accused, but the police have not bothered to associate private independent witnesses to the alleged recovery from the possession of the petitioner/accused. In the instant case neither any video in the shape of recording and photographs of alleged recovery has been collected by the police nor any private witness from the locality was associated while effecting recovery of contraband charas from the possession of the petitioner/ accused. The use of modern devices during recoveries not merely a procedural formality but a crucial safeguard to protect innocent persons from the police atrocities. In absence of video evidence and independent witnesses the prosecution's case mainly relies on the testimony of the police officials involved in the raid which is insufficient to meet the required standard of proof. In this regard reference can be made to the reported judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court of Pakistan reported as 2025 SCMR 721.
8. After having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, we find that the quantity of the recovered narcotic substance was 1120 grams, which makes the case of the petitioner a borderline case. The petitioner is stated to be a previous non-convict and he does not have any criminal antecedents. Moreover, the petitioner is behind the bars since his arrest on 04-05-2025 and Challan against the petitioner/accused has yet been submitted in the court of competent jurisdiction, which is violation of mandatory provisions of section 173 Cr.P.C and no material progress in the trial could even argue today and further incarceration is of no consequences to the prosecution case.
9. For what has been discussed above, this bail petition is accepted. Consequently the petitioner/accused is admitted to post arrest bail subject to his furnishing of bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 300,000/- (three lacs only) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court.
10. The above observations of this Court being tentative in nature shall have no bearing on the merits of the case at the time of final decision by the Trial Court. File.
JK/18/GB Petition allowed.