PLJ 2025 SC (Cr.C.) 103
[Appellate Jurisdiction]
Present: Muhammad Hashim Khan Kakar and Ishtiaq Ibrahim, JJ.
NDUKWE UDOKA PETER--Petitioner
versus
STATE and another--Respondents
Crl. P. No. 239 of 2025, decided on 15.4.2025.
(Against the order/judgment dated 17.02.2025 passed by the Islamabad High Court, Islamabad in Crl. Misc. No. 265/2025)
Constitution of Pakistan, 1973--
بعد از گرفتاری ضمانت کی درخواست خارج کر دی گئی۔۔ منشیات کی اسمگلنگ میں ملوث ہونا۔۔ 680 گرام ہیروئن برآمد ہوئی۔۔ مبینہ برآمدگی کا مشاہدہ کرنے کے لیے کوئی آزاد گواہ موجود نہیں تھا اور منشیات کی برآمدگی کے الزام کو ثابت کرنے کے لیے کوئی ویڈیو پیش نہیں کی گئی۔۔ درخواست گزار کی حراست کے علاوہ، اس کے ساتھی کو بھی اسی الزام میں گرفتار کیا گیا۔۔ وکیل نے اپنے موقف کی حمایت میں سی سی ٹی وی فوٹیج اور تصاویر بھی ریکارڈ پر پیش کیں۔۔ اس معاملے کے امتیازی حقائق و حالات کی وجہ سے یہ کیس ضمانت کے تعین کے لیے عدالتی جانچ پڑتال کا متقاضی ہے۔۔ درخواست گزار کے مسلسل جھوٹے ملوث ہونے کے الزامات، مبینہ سابقہ ہراسانی، سی سی ٹی وی ثبوت کی ضبطگی، آزاد گواہوں کی عدم موجودگی اور سینئر پولیس افسران کے پاس فوری شکایات درج کرانا اس بات کی نشاندہی کرتے ہیں کہ یہ ایک ایسا معاملہ ہے جس میں مزید تفتیش کی ضرورت ہے۔۔ مزید برآں، برآمد شدہ مقدار، اگرچہ کافی ہے، تجارتی سطح تک نہیں پہنچتی اور نہ ہی غیر جانبدار گواہوں کی موجودگی میں کی گئی اور نہ ہی کسی ویڈیو ثبوت سے اس کی تصدیق ہوئی۔ درخواست منظور کی جاتی ہے۔
----Art. 185(3)--Petition for post-arrest bail was dismissed--Involvement in narcotics trafficking--680 grams of heroin was recovered--No independent witness was present to witness purported recovery and no video was produced to substantiate allegation of narcotics being recovered from petitioner’s possession--In addition to petitioner’s detention, his companion was also apprehended on same charges--The counsel in support of his contention also placed on record CCTV footage and photographs in this matter--This case warrants judicial scrutiny for 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 prompt filing of complaints before senior police officials suggest that this is a case that warrants further investigation--Moreover, quantity recovered, although substantial, does not reach commercial levels and was not conducted in presence of neutral witnesses or substantiated by any video evidence--Petition allowed. [Pp. 104 & 105] A
Raja Rizwan Abbasi, ASC for Petitioner.
Syed Rifaqat Hussain Shah, AOR for Petitioner.
Ms. Chand Bibi, DPG for State.
Date of hearing: 15.4.2025.
Judgment
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.
(A.A.K.) Petition allowed
0 Comments