Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Official Citation: 2025 SCMR 1657
Court / Jurisdiction: SUPREME-COURT
Parties: NDUKWE UDOKA PETER vs StateHonorable Justice Muhammad Hashim Khan KakarRaja Rizwan Abbasi
This judicial decision was delivered by the SUPREME-COURT. The matter involves proceedings between NDUKWE UDOKA PETER and StateHonorable Justice Muhammad Hashim Khan KakarRaja Rizwan Abbasi, officially reported as 2025 SCMR 1657. The court reviewed applicable Pakistani statutes, procedural requirements, and governing case-law authorities. The full text below contains the complete facts, arguments, and legal reasoning rendered by the honorable bench.
2025 S C M R 1657 [Supreme Court of Pakistan] Present: Muhammad Hashim Khan Kakar and Ishtiaq Ibrahim, JJ NDUKWE UDOKA PETER ---Petitioner Versus The STATE and another ---Respondents 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). 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 680-grams 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. 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. 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. JK/N-2/SC Appeal allowed.