Citation Name: 2025 MLD 1930 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case Waseem Ahmed vs State S

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

Citation Name: 2025 MLD 1930 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case Waseem Ahmed VS State S. 497---Sindh Control of Narcotic Substances Act (VIII of 2024),S. 9(1), Serial No.(1)(b)---Possession of narcotic substances---Bail, grant of---Further inquiry---Allegation against the accused-petitioner was that 5200-grams bhang was recovered from his possession---In view of the statutory bar contained in S.35(1) of the Sindh Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 2024, the ordinary remedy of bail was not available---However, such restriction did not preclude the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution, which remained available where no alternate or efficacious remedy existed and the fundamental right to liberty was at stake---Right to liberty was a fundamental right, guaranteed Under Arts. 9 and 14 of the Constitution, where such liberty was curtailed by operation of statutory bar, regardless of the individual merits of the case, the High Court's constitutional jurisdiction remained available to ensure that the mandate of the Constitution was not defeated by the procedural rigidity---Alleged recovery of 5200 grams of Bhang fell under S.9(1), Serial No.(1)(b) of Sindh Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 2024, carrying imprisonment which might extend to seven years but shall not be less than three years---At bail stage lesser punishment was to be considered---Accordingly, alleged recovery from the petitioner did not fall within the prohibited degree---Alleged recovery proceedings were conducted without associating any independent witness, which casted doubt on the credibility of the prosecution's version---FIR had been lodged by an officer who prima facie did not appear to be duly authorized under the Act---No video recording of the incident had been produced as required under the statutory framework---Petitioner also had no prior criminal record---Alleged recovered quantity of Bhang (Hemp) did not fall within the definition of commercial quantity under the Act and as such, the offence did not attract the prohibitory clause---In cases not falling within the prohibitory clause, bail is to be granted as a rule unless exceptional circumstances existed---In these circumstances, the case called for further inquiry---Absence of electronic evidence such as video recording and the questionable competence of the complainant officer further weakened the prosecution's stance---Where the law imposes a bar on bail the procedural safeguards provided under the same statute must be strictly observed by the prosecution---Failure to comply with mandatory requirements such as association of independent witnesses, proper documentation, lawful authorization of the complainant officer and video recording prescribed seriously undermined the prosecution's case---When liberty is curtailed through exceptional statutory bars the obligation to act in strict conformity with the law must be enforced with equal vigour---Bail petition was allowed, in circumstances.

Citation Name: 2025 MLD 1930 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case Waseem Ahmed vs State S — 2025 MLD 1930 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 MLD