Ikram Ullah vs State S — 2026 PCrLJ 165 Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court

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

Ikram Ullah VS State 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.

Ikram Ullah vs State S — 2026 PCrLJ 165 Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2026 PCRLJ