NAUROZ KHAN/Accused vs THE STATE and anothers
This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by the accused, Nauroz Khan, who was charged under sections 302, 324, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the accused was entitled to bail despite being named in the First Information Report (F.I.R.) for effective firing, having absconded for over four years, and facing proceedings under sections 87, 88, 204, and 512 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Peshawar High Court held that the accused was not entitled to bail. The court reasoned that the accused was directly charged with firing at the deceased, supported by medical evidence showing multiple firearm wounds, and his prolonged abscondence despite legal proceedings created reasonable grounds to believe he was guilty of an offense punishable by death or life imprisonment. The key principle laid down is that an accused who absconds for a significant period following a direct charge in an F.I.R. for a heinous crime, where medical evidence corroborates the allegations, is generally disentitled to the concession of bail.
- Does the abscondence of an accused for a significant period after being named in an F.I.R. constitute reasonable grounds to deny bail?
- Is an accused entitled to bail when medical evidence corroborates the allegation of effective firing?
- Can bail be granted to an accused charged with an offense punishable by death or life imprisonment when there are reasonable grounds to believe in their guilt?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 87, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 88, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 204, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 512, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
' MAHBUB ALI KHAN, C.J.--- Accused Nauroz Khan has been arrested in a case registered under sections 302, 324, 34, P.P.C. And could not get his release on bail from the forums below. Hence this petition.
2. We have heard Mr. Haroon Adnan Orakzai, Advocate on behalf of the accused-petitioner and A.A.-G. Khawaja Azhar Rashid for State. None is present for the complainant party despite notice.
The accused is not only named in the F.I.R. Registered at Police Station Akora Khattak on 24-2-1993 for effective firing on the deceased, but he absconded from the spot after the occurrence and lived in exile for a period of more than four years when arrested by the police in the case in the year, 1997. He is directly charged for firing at the deceased in the F.I.R. Along with the co-accused. The medical evidence indicated six inlet fire-arm wounds with corresponding exit injuries on the dead body caused by different bore weapons. Two empties of 7.62 bore were also recovered from the spot by the Investigating Officer. All this shows that number of the accused mentioned in the F.I.R. Is not exaggerated.
3. Additionally, the learned counsel could not explain long period of ascendance of the accused despite proceedings taken against him under sections 87, 88, Cr.P.C. Read with sections 204 and 512, Cr.P.C. He was arrested in the case after the co-accused, namely, Karamat Khan was released on bail by this Court on 14-11-1997. From all this material placed on record there appear to us reasonable grounds for believing that the accused-petitioner has been guilty of an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life and may not be released on bail. We have been told that challah in the case has been put in Court. The learned Court is directed to speed up disposal of the case being that of the year, 1993.
Cited by 3 cases
- HALEEM KHAN and anothers vs THE STATE and another 2009 P Cr. L J 176
- ILTAF vs ASIF and another 2004 P C R L J 1799
- SHER AHMAD and 5 otherss vs JAN FAQIR and anothers 2003 P Cr. L J 528