IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(APPELLATE JURISDICTION) 
 
 
PRESENT: 
MR. JUSTICE YAHYA AFRIDI 
MR. JUSTICE SAYYED MAZAHAR ALI AKBAR NAQVI 
MR. JUSTICE MUHAMMAD ALI MAZHAR  
 
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 104-P OF 2023 
(On appeal against the order dated 19.06.2023 
passed by the Peshawar High Court, Peshawar in 
Crl.Misc. BA No. 1706-P/2023) 
 
Said Nabi 
 
… Petitioner 
Versus 
Ajmal Khan and another 
 
… Respondents 
 
For the Petitioner: 
Mr. Shabbir Hussain Gigyani, ASC 
 
 
For the State: 
Mr. Altaf Khan, Addl. AG. KPK 
 
 
For the Complainant: 
Mr. Suleman, son 
 
 
Date of Hearing: 
21.09.2023 
 
ORDER 
 
SAYYED MAZAHAR ALI AKBAR NAQVI, J.- Through the instant petition 
under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 
1973, the petitioner has assailed the order dated 19.06.2023 passed by 
the learned Single Judge of the learned Peshawar High Court, Peshawar, 
with a prayer to grant post-arrest bail in case registered vide FIR No. 929 
dated 23.10.2018 under Sections 302/324/427/148/149/337-A(ii)/337-F(ii) 
PPC at Police Station Nowshera Kalan, in the interest of safe 
administration of criminal justice. 
2. 
 
Briefly stated the prosecution story as narrated in the crime 
report is that on 23.10.2018, the complainant Ajmal Khan along with his 
sons Jibran and Suleman and brother-in-law namely Fateh Khan were 
returning home after attending court proceedings. They were estopped by 
the petitioner and his co-accused, who started firing at them, as a result 
Criminal Petition No. 104-P/2023 
2
whereof, Jibran was hit by a bullet and died at the spot while the 
complainant, Suleman and Fateh Khan sustained injuries.   
3. 
 
At the very outset, it has been argued by learned counsel for 
the petitioner that the petitioner has been falsely roped in this case 
against the actual facts and circumstances. Contends that only a general 
role of firing has been attributed to the petitioner. Contends that the two 
co-accused of the petitioner, who were ascribed the similar role, have 
been acquitted by the court of competent jurisdiction whereas three out 
of seven were acquitted on the basis of compromise arrived, as such, the 
petitioner deserves the premium of post-arrest bail on the basis of these 
facts. Contends that merely the absconsion of an accused cannot be 
deemed as the proof of his guilt. Lastly contends that the learned High 
Court while declining bail to the petitioner has not followed the guidelines 
issued by superior Courts for the safe administration of criminal justice, 
therefore, the same may be set at naught and the petitioner may be 
granted bail.   
4. 
 
On the other hand, learned Law Officer assisted by the son of 
the complainant opposed the petition by contending that the petitioner 
has specifically been nominated in the crime report and he remained 
absconder for a considerable period of time, therefore, he does not 
deserve any leniency from this Court.  
5. 
 
We have heard learned counsel for the parties at some 
length and have perused the available record with their able assistance.  
6. 
 
As per the contents of the crime report, the allegation 
against the petitioner is of generalized nature wherein it is alleged that he 
along with co-accused launched an attack on the complainant party and 
resorted to indiscriminate firing due to which one person lost his life 
whereas three sustained injuries. This Court is conscious of the fact that 
the occurrence has taken place when the complainant party was returning 
back home after attending Court proceedings in District Courts Nowshera. 
Criminal Petition No. 104-P/2023 
3
However, this aspect of the prosecution case when juxtaposed with the 
subsequent events, which took place at a belated stage when two co-
accused of the petitioner, who were ascribed similar role, have been 
acquitted by the court of competent jurisdiction after fulfilling all the legal 
requirements whereas three accused out of the seven have been 
acquitted on the basis of compromise between the parties, it shows that 
the bulk of the prosecution case has already been decided by the court of 
competent jurisdiction. After having gone through the impugned 
judgments passed by the learned two courts below, we are of the view 
that the only allegation against the petitioner that remains in the field is 
that he remained absconder for five years. No doubt that abscondence 
does constitute a relevant factor when examining question of bail as it is 
held by this Court in The State Vs. Malik Mukhtar Ahmed Awan (1991 
SCMR 322) but this aspect has been subsequently dealt by this Court and it 
was held that the same has not to be considered in isolation to keep a 
person behind the bars for an indefinite period. It is settled by this Court 
that a person who is named in a murder case, rightly or wrongly, if 
becomes fugitive from law, his conduct is but natural. Reliance is placed on 
Rasool Muhammad Vs. Asal Muhammad (PLJ 1995 SC 477). This aspect 
was further elaborated by this Court in another judgment reported as 
Muhammad Tasaweer Vs. Hafiz Zulkarnain (PLD 2009 SC 53). We have 
been informed that nothing incriminating has been recovered from the 
possession or at the pointation of the petitioner. The only distinguishing 
feature, which was in field was nothing but the absconsion of the 
petitioner, which has already been elaborated above. In these 
circumstances, coupled with the fact that the case of the petitioner is at 
par with the co-accused, since acquitted, the petitioner has made out a 
case for concession of bail.   
7. 
 
For what has been discussed above, we convert this petition 
into appeal, allow it and set aside the impugned order. The petitioner is 
admitted to bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of 
Rs.200,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of 
Criminal Petition No. 104-P/2023 
4
learned Trial Court. Before parting with the order, we may observe that 
the observations made in this order are tentative in nature and would not 
prejudice the proceedings before the Trial Court.   
 
 
 
JUDGE 
 
 
 
JUDGE 
 
 
 
JUDGE 
Islamabad, the 
21st of September, 2023 
Approved For Reporting 
Khurram