In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of Pakistan on Monday dismissed the bail plea of murder accused Aurangzeb after his own legal counsel opted to withdraw the application. The accused faces serious charges for a fatal shooting incident that occurred in Mansehra back in 2020.
Court Questions Urgency of Bail Plea
A two-member bench of the apex court, led by Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan, presided over the hearing. The defence lawyer argued that there were inconsistencies between the post-mortem findings and the case facts, and that the official site plan did not align with the police challan. However, the bench shifted focus to the conduct of the accused.
Justice Afghan pointedly asked whether Aurangzeb had been declared a proclaimed offender. Deputy Prosecutor General Zahid Yousaf Qureshi informed the court that the accused had evaded arrest for a staggering period of five years, two months, and twelve days. The court was told he was finally taken into custody on November 11, 2025.
"Cannot Remain in Jail for Two Months?"
Upon learning that Aurangzeb had been arrested only recently, Justice Afghan questioned the pressing need for bail. The judge remarked, "is there someone so special who cannot remain in jail even for two months?" This observation underscored the court's skepticism regarding the timing of the bail request.
The defence then urged the Supreme Court to direct the trial court to expedite the proceedings. Justice Afghan countered this by observing that had the accused surrendered or been arrested in a timely manner, the trial would likely have concluded by now.
Case Background and Final Outcome
The prosecution's case states that Aurangzeb, along with accomplices, is responsible for a 2020 incident in Mansehra that resulted in one person's death and left another injured. After hearing the arguments and the prosecution's details on the prolonged absconding period, the bench dismissed the bail application. The dismissal was formally recorded on the grounds of the plea's withdrawal by the defence counsel.
This ruling highlights the judiciary's firm stance on individuals who evade the legal process for extended periods and subsequently seek relief from the highest court.
