Form No: HCJD/C-121
ORDER SHEET
IN THE ISLAMABAD HIGH COURT, ISLAMABAD
(JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT)
Criminal Misc. No. 697-B/2025
Hamza Ali
Versus
The State
S. No. of Date of order/ Order with signature of Judge and that of parties or counsel
order/ proceedings where necessary.
proceedings
16.04.2025 Raja Shiraz Ahmed Janjua, Advocate for the
petitioner.
Ms. Balqees Rahat, State counsel with Muhammad
Afzal,, ASI.
MUHAMMAD ASIF, J. Through this Criminal
Miscellaneous, the petitioner namely Hamza Ali seeks post arrest
bail in case FIR No. 412/2025 dated 20.03.2025 offence under
Section 9 (1) 6-C of Control of Narcotics Substance Act, 1997
(“CNSA”) registered with police station Khanna, Islamabad.
2. According to the allegations outlined in the F.I.R, on
20.03.2025, at about 12:30 am, the police party apprehended the
petitioner from the area of Pindoriyan, Islamabad, and „heroin”
weighing 570 grams was recovered from his possession.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the story
narrated in the FIR is false, frivolous, vexatious and baseless; that
no private witness of the locality was associated; that there is
nothing on record, which prima facie connects the petitioner with
the commission of alleged offence; and that the petitioner is
behind the bars since his arrest, investigation of the instant case
has been completed and petiotner is no more required for further
Page - 2
Crl. Misc. No. 697/2025
investigation, therefore, he is entitled to the concession of post-
arrest bail.
4. Conversely, learned State Counsel contends that the
petitioner was arrested on the spot with a considerable quantity of
narcotics substance; therefore, he is not entitled to the concession
of bail.
5. Heard, record perused.
6. It is well-settled principle that every criminal case is
required to be seen in the light of its own peculiar facts and
circumstances and while making decision on bail application only
a tentative assessment of the material collected by the prosecution
is permissible and deeper appreciation is not warranted under the
law.
7. A bare perusal of the record reveals that the petitioner was
arrested by the local police on 20.03.2025 wherein, “heroin”
weighing 570 grams was recovered from his possession.
8. The Article 164 of Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984
highlights the importance of modern devices and techniques in the
collection of evidence, such as video recordings, should be given
due importance in judicial proceedings. This provision
emphasizes the need for law enforcing agencies to adopt
contemporary methods to ensure the accuracy and reliability of
evidence.
9. In the present case, the report of PFSA is not available on
record, neither any video recording or photographs of the alleged
recovery have been made by the police nor any private witness
from the locality was associated to prove the alleged recovery
from the possession of the petitioner, which makes the case of
Page - 3
Crl. Misc. No. 697/2025
prosecution doubtful. The use of modern devices during
recoveries is not merely a procedural formality but a crucial
safeguard to protect innocent persons from potential police
atrocities. It provides an objective and unbiased account of the
recovery process, reducing the risk of false implications and
ensuring that the rights of the accused are protected. In the cases
of stringent punishments, the prosecution must present clear,
cogent and reliable evidence to prove the accused's guilt beyond a
reasonable doubt. In the absence of video evidence and
independent witnesses, the prosecution's case relies heavily on the
testimony of the police officers involved in the raid, which is
insufficient to meet the required standard of proof.
10. I strongly recognize the need to combat the menace of
narcotics, however, it must also be ensured that the rights of the
accused are protected. The failure to record the recovery on video,
non-association of private witnesses and failure to adhere clear
judicial directives, tilts the balance in favour of the petitioner.
11. It is also a golden principle of administration of criminal
justice that ultimate conviction and incarceration of a guilty
person can repair the wrong caused by a mistaken relief of interim
bail granted to him, but no satisfactory reparation can be offered
to an innocent man for his unjustified incarceration at any stage of
the case albeit his acquittal in the long run. In this regard
reference can be made to the case of Manzoor v. State (PLD 1972
SC 81).
12. In view of the foregoing, instant bail petition is allowed
subject to furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 500,000/-
(Rupees five hundred thousand) along with one local surety in the
like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court.
Page - 4
Crl. Misc. No. 697/2025
13. Needless to say, the observations made herein above are
tentative in nature and shall not influence the Trial Court in any
manner, whatsoever.
(MUHAMMAD ASIF)
JUDGE
**//Kamran//**
