PESHAWAR: Peshawar High Courthasgrantedbailto a suspect arrested at a railway station on charges of possessing narcotics, ruling that making video of narcotics recovery process was essential for transparency and preventing tampering with the evidence.

A single-member bench of Justice wiqar Ahmad accepted bail petition of the suspect, Mohammad Yousaf, on condition of submitting two surety bonds each of Rs 400,000. The bench discussed in detail several judgements ofsuperior courts regarding `videography` of narcotics recovery process, especially at a public place and association of independent witnesses from public with recovery proceedings.

The petitioner was arrested by personnel of railway police on Mar 15, 2025, at Peshawar Cantonment Railway Station, claiming that they had recovered four kilograms of charas from his bag.

Advocate Fawad Afzal Safi appeared for the petitioner and stated that his client was falsely implicated in the instant case. He said that railway police had neither associated any independent witness from public nor had recorded video of the alleged recovery process.

`Perusal of the record reveals that the petitioner was apprehended on the platform of railwaystation. Being a public place, a large number of people are always present there for arrival and departure to their abodes via trains but no one from public i.e.

passengers or other people waiting for arrival of their beloved ones, has been associated with the recovery proceedingsin order to ensure accuracy, transparency and reliability in evidence,` the bench ruled.

`Besides, at the time of seizure of contraband from possession of petitioner, no video recording has been made by complainant.

Videography of the recovery process is not just a procedural formality but an essential safeguard designed to ensure transparency and prevent any possibility of tampering or manipulation of evidence,` the bench observed.

It added that Supreme Court ofPakistan and Peshawar High Court had issued clear directives in several cases emphasising the importance of videography during recovery operations, especially in narcotics-related cases to ensure that the evidence presented in court was reliable and trustworthy.

The bench referred to a last year`s judgement of Supreme Court wherein it had ruled: `If police and ANF were to use their mobile phone cameras to record and/or take photographs of the search, seizure and arrest, it would be useful evidence to establish the presence of the accused at the crime scene, the possession by the accused of narcotic substances, search and its seizure. It may also prevent false allegations being levelled against ANF/police that the narcotic substance was foisted upon them forsome ulterior motives.

The bench also quoted a last year`s judgement of PHC wherein it had ordered the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa provincial police officer, provincial director of AntiNarcotics Force, provincial director general of excise and taxation and narcotics control and chief collector customs to ensure at all costs that the recovery by respective police force in narcotics cases should be supported by videography, so that only the real culprits could be kept behind bars and punished while innocent persons were not entangled and further any more afflicted to severe mental and physical as well as financial agonies due to spurious/bogus/phony recoveries.

The bench also quoted from a recent judgement of the apex court wherein it had ruled that the use ofmodern devices during recoveries was 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 ofthe accused are protected.

`In the absence of video evidence and independent witnesses, prosecution`s case relies heavily on the testimony of police officers involved in the raid, which is insufficient to meet the required standard of proof,` the court observed.

`Failure to adhere to these directives and guidelines while not an automatic ground for acquittal or dismissal of the case, it certainly raises significant questions about the integrity and veracity of prosecution version,` the bench ruled.