AURANGZEB KHAN vs THE STATE and another
The petitioner, Aurangzeb Khan, sought post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No. 31 registered under sections 302, 324, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Kakki, after his bail applications were dismissed by the lower forums. The core legal question was whether the petitioner made out a case for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 based on delayed F.I.R., nighttime occurrence, and medical evidence. The Peshawar High Court held that the petitioner was specifically nominated with a matching role, supported by motive, ocular account, and recovery of empties, and that no case for bail was made out upon a tentative assessment. The court dismissed the petition, reiterating the principle that deeper appreciation of evidence is impermissible at the bail stage and bail must be refused when reasonable grounds exist to believe the accused committed an offence falling within the prohibitory clause.
- Whether delay in lodging the F.I.R. and nighttime occurrence make the identity of the accused doubtful warranting bail?
- Can the court conduct a deeper appreciation of evidence and minutely examine the merits of the case at the bail stage?
- When must a court refuse bail under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 based on reasonable grounds?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
' Petitioner Aurangzeb Khan is one of the accused persons involved in case F.I.R. No.31 dated 22-2- 2004 registered at Police Station, Kakki under sections 302/324/34, P.P.C. He has moved instant application seeking his release on bail after refusal of the same from two forums below vide orders dated 20-3-2004 and 7-4-2004 respectively.
2. The petitioner is accused of having on 22-2-2004 at 'Shan Qazavela' in Barid Vial near company mosque, Kakki sharing his common intention with eh-accused Muhammad Ali, committed Qatl- iAmd of Iksar Ali Khan deceased and attempted murder of Asghar Ali complainant and his companion Qismat Ali.
3. Mr. Muhammad Shalinawaz Sikandari, Advocate forich petitioner contended that there is delay in loding of the F.I.Raence speaks volume about consultations and deliberations; that the becomes having taken place at night time, the identity of the cults regarding doubtful; that elders of the locality are ready to file goes not support innocence of the petitioner and that medical evidet to further inquiry the story of prosecution and as such the case vision 497, Cr.P.C.And the same is covered under subsection (21
4. Learned Deputy Advocate Mr. Muhammad Sharif Chudhry Muhammad Shahab Khan, General for the State assisted his the bail application, contended Advocate for the complainant o-supported by ocular, medical and that the prosecution case with recovery of empties from the spot, circumstantial evidence case the concession of bail for cogent reasons not open to exception. The petitioner has beer. And the impugne of grant/refusal of bail is to be determined aside. They are acquitted of the charge. They would be released from I Jail forthwith, if not required in any other case.
5. The regard to the facts and circumstances of the case. Judiciously secution satisfies the Court that there are reasonable While ' oelieve that the accused has committed the offence falling in category, the Court must refuse bail. On the other hand, where g.,:cused satisfied the Court that there are no reasonable grounds tobelieve that he is guilty of such offence, then the Court must release him on bail. For arriving at the conclusion as to whether or not there are reasonable grounds to believe that the accused is guilty of offence, the Court will not conduct a preliminary inquiry/trial but will only make tentative assessment i.e. Will take all the material collected by the police for and against the accused and be prima facie satisfied that some tangible evidence can be offered which, if left unrebutted, may lead to the inference of guilt. Deeper appreciation of the evidence and circumstances appearing in the case is neither desirable nor permissible at hail stage. So, the Court will not minutely examine the merits of the case or plea of defence at that stage.
6. In view of the express allegations in the F.I.R., nomination of the petitioner as an accused and the specific role attributed to him coupled with motive, recovery of empties from the spot, I am of the view that apparently no case for grant of bail has been made out and the Courts below have rightly declined bail to the petitioner. Omer Khan and another v. Khalid Mehmood and another (2003 PCr.LJ 1110 Peshawar). The application fails which is hereby dismissed.