Nadar Khan v The State through Advocate General, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and another

Background

Background

The Supreme Court granted post-arrest bail where the alleged firing role was joint and unspecified, the forensic circumstances required further inquiry, and lower courts had not determined whether a seriously ill 78-year-old accused was receiving adequate treatment in custody.

A 78-year-old accused was implicated with his two sons in a double-murder case through a joint firing allegation. No weapon was recovered from him and the empties reportedly came from one pistol. The lower courts also rejected documented serious illnesses without determining whether adequate specialist treatment was available or provided in custody.

Can serious illness be rejected without assessing actual treatment in jail?

Can serious illness be rejected without assessing actual treatment in jail?

Whether a 78-year-old accused was entitled to post-arrest bail where the alleged firing role was joint and unspecified, no weapon was recovered, the empties reportedly came from one pistol, and serious illnesses were rejected without determining the treatment available in custody.

Court holding

What the Court decided

Yes. The generalized joint role, lack of recovery and forensic circumstance required further inquiry. The confirmed serious illnesses could not be summarily disregarded without ascertaining and recording whether the required medical facility and treatment were available or being provided in judicial custody.

Final outcome

Final outcome

The petition was converted into an appeal and allowed. The Peshawar High Court judgment dated 10 July 2026 was set aside, and post-arrest bail was granted against bonds of Rs200,000 with one surety in the same amount.

Practical effect

What the decision means in practice

Medical-bail records should identify objective findings and the treatment actually available in jail. The State should support claims of adequate custodial care with concrete facility and specialist information, while courts must separately examine individual attribution under a joint prosecution allegation.

This summary states the immediate effect recorded in the decision. The original judgment and the facts of the particular case remain controlling.

Key legal principles

Key legal principles

• An unspecified joint role may require further inquiry where the prosecution does not attribute particular injuries to the accused.
• Absence of weapon recovery and forensic material indicating one firing weapon may be material to individual attribution at the bail stage.
• Confirmed serious illness cannot be rejected solely because a Medical Board did not label it terminal or use a fixed formula.
• Before rejecting a medical ground, the court should ascertain and record whether the required treatment and facilities are actually available or being provided in judicial custody.
• Advanced age and illness do not create automatic bail; they must be assessed with objective medical evidence, custodial capacity and the merits of the case.
• A further-inquiry finding regulates pre-trial custody and does not determine innocence or guilt.

Pakistan relevance

Pakistan relevance

The order adds current Supreme Court guidance on both further inquiry in joint-role murder allegations and the judicial duty to investigate custodial medical capacity before rejecting serious illness as a bail ground.