2026 P Cr. L J 165

 2026 P Cr. L J 165

[Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court]

Before Ali Baig, C.J and Raja Shakeel Ahmed, J

IKRAM ULLAH---Petitioner

Versus

The STATE---Respondent

Cr. Misc. No. 253 of 2025, decided on 7th July, 2025.

(a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---

----S. 497---Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), S.9(1),

Sr. No.3(c) [as amended by the Control of Narcotic Substances

(Amendment Act (XX of 2022)]---Possession of narcotic substances---

Bail, grant of---Border-line case---Lack of video recording evidence---

Allegation against the accused-petitioner was that 1120-grams chars

was recovered from his possession---From the perusal of contents of

FIR it appeared that the petitioner/accused was arrested on the basis

of spy information and allegedly 1120 grams contraband charas was

recovered from the petitioner/ accused, but the police had 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 had 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---Use of modern devices during recoveries is 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

relied on the testimony of the Police Officials involved in the raid

which was insufficient to meet the required standard of proof---

After perusal of the record, it was found that the quantity of the

recovered narcotic substance was 1120 grams, which made the case

of the petitioner a borderline case---Petitioner was stated to be a

previous non-convict and he did not have any criminal antecedents--

-Moreover, the petitioner was behind the bars since his arrest on 04-

05-2025 and challan against the petitioner/accused had not yet been

submitted in the Court of competent jurisdiction, which was

violation of mandatory provisions of S.173, Cr.P.C., and there was no

material progress in the trial could---Further incarceration of

petitioner was of no consequences to the prosecution case---Bail

application was allowed, in circumstances. 2016 PCr.LJ 730; 2005 SCMR 721; 2011 PCr.LJ 1200 and 2016 PCr.LJ

1315 ref.

2025 SCMR 721 rel.

(b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---

----S. 497---Bail order---Observations of the Court---Scope---

Observations of the Court in bail order being tentative in nature

shall have no bearing on the merits of the case at the time of final

decision by the Trial Court.

Zafar Iqbal and Anwar Zeb for Petitioner.

D.A.G. Malik Sherbaz for the State.

Date of hearing: 30th June, 2025.

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.