IMDAD ULLAH vs State S — 2024 PCrLJ 652 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

IMDAD ULLAH VS State S. 497---Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXXI of 2019), S.11-B---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 164---Possession of narcotic substance---Private witnesses, non-association of---Use of modern device (videography) by the Law Enforcement Agency---Benefit---Contention of the petitioner/accused was that he was illegally roped by the Police while groping to hunt for gratification from his father---Validity---In cases of recovery of contrabands particularly Charas and Ice, the police neither associates private witnesses to authenticate such recovery nor do they offer plausible explanation for their omissions---To avoid malice of unscrupulous policemen and even otherwise in cases when resourceful accused can win over independent witnesses, the police as a worthy force and body is required to switch over/turn over to making good use of Art. 164 Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984---Said provision has provided that the evidence made available because of modern devices and techniques can be allowed by the Courts for consideration---High Court observed that the only solution to assuage the allegations, whether false or true, of planted recovery of narcotics lies in making recourse to the spirit of the order for use of videography right from seizing, when the recovery in the reported mode and manner is effected and the investigation is also lasted with the belief that the same has actually been made from such persons or from the dwelling houses or from the vehicles so every recovery for proceeding of narcotics when especially the quantity of narcotics is considerably huge, the Seizing Officer shall make a video recording of the recovery proceedings, which shall be made available before the Court at bail stage while disposing the bail application failing which the credibility of the provincial police or any other force dealing to curb the menace of narcotics will be at stake while the individual under arrest may whisk of detention setting the prosecution case against him at naught---Any plausible reason if at all the Seizing Officer if for any reason Investigation Officer or Incharge of Police Station is unable to proceed in line with the shown technology based parameter, beyond their control, the reasons for the omission must be recorded in the investigation conducted/challan for appraisal of Courts---High Court directed the police and all other concerned Forces/stakeholders to follow the said directions---Bail was allowed, in circumstances.

IMDAD ULLAH vs State S — 2024 PCrLJ 652 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2024 PCRLJ