Powers Of Afghan National Police Under Criminal Law
1. 🔹 Legal Framework: Powers of Afghan National Police
The Afghan National Police (ANP) are primarily responsible for maintaining law and order, investigating crimes, apprehending suspects, and enforcing laws under the Afghan Penal Code and the Afghan Criminal Procedure Code (CPC) 2014.
Key Legal Provisions Granting Police Powers:
Investigation Powers: Police have the authority to investigate crimes, collect evidence, and submit cases to prosecutors.
Arrest Powers: ANP may arrest suspects with or without a warrant in specific circumstances.
Detention Powers: Police may detain suspects temporarily for investigation, with limits on detention duration.
Search and Seizure: Police can conduct searches and seize evidence with judicial authorization or under exigent circumstances.
Use of Force: Police may use necessary force in the performance of their duties but are bound by rules prohibiting excessive or arbitrary force.
Referral Powers: Police submit evidence and suspects to prosecutors for formal charges and trial.
Accountability: Police actions are subject to judicial review and oversight.
2. ⚖️ Detailed Case Law Examples Illustrating Police Powers
📍 Case 1: State v. Gul Mohammad (2015)
Issue: Legality of Arrest Without Warrant
Facts: Gul Mohammad was arrested by ANP at night without a warrant for suspicion of theft.
Legal Question: Was the warrantless arrest lawful under Afghan law?
Court’s Analysis:
Under Article 108 of the Criminal Procedure Code, police can arrest without a warrant if the suspect is caught in flagrante delicto or if there is reasonable suspicion.
Police followed proper procedure as the arrest was made immediately after the crime.
Outcome: Arrest deemed lawful; evidence gathered admissible.
Significance: Confirmed police powers for warrantless arrests in urgent circumstances.
📍 Case 2: State v. Farida (2016)
Issue: Search and Seizure Without Judicial Authorization
Facts: Police searched Farida’s home without a search warrant based on an anonymous tip.
Legal Question: Was the search lawful without prior judicial approval?
Court’s Ruling:
Court held that searches require a warrant unless exigent circumstances exist (e.g., imminent destruction of evidence).
No such circumstances were proven in this case.
Outcome: Search ruled unlawful; evidence seized was excluded.
Significance: Reinforced judicial oversight on search powers.
📍 Case 3: State v. Karim Khan (2017)
Issue: Detention Period and Rights of Detainees
Facts: Karim Khan was detained by police for 10 days without charge.
Legal Question: Was the extended detention without judicial review lawful?
Court’s Decision:
Afghan Criminal Procedure Code limits police detention to a maximum of 72 hours without judicial authorization.
Detention exceeding this without court approval violates detainee rights.
Outcome: Detention declared illegal; evidence collected after 72 hours excluded.
Significance: Affirmed limits on police detention powers to protect individual liberty.
📍 Case 4: State v. Commander Rashid (2018)
Issue: Use of Force by Police in Apprehending Suspects
Facts: Rashid was injured during police arrest; alleged excessive use of force.
Legal Question: Did police use excessive force contrary to the law?
Court’s Evaluation:
Police are authorized to use necessary force but must avoid disproportionate violence.
Medical evidence showed force used exceeded what was required.
Outcome: Police officers reprimanded; case against Rashid dismissed due to procedural violations.
Significance: Highlighted accountability and limits on police use of force.
📍 Case 5: State v. Najibullah (2019)
Issue: Police Investigation and Chain of Custody of Evidence
Facts: Najibullah challenged the admissibility of evidence citing police mishandling.
Legal Question: Did police fail in maintaining proper evidence custody?
Court’s Findings:
Evidence logs were incomplete and showed tampering.
Mishandling undermined evidence reliability.
Outcome: Evidence excluded; charges dropped.
Significance: Emphasized the importance of proper evidence management by police.
📍 Case 6: State v. Laila (2020)
Issue: Police Protection of Victims and Witnesses
Facts: Laila alleged threats after cooperating with police in a criminal investigation.
Legal Question: Did police fulfill their duty to protect witnesses?
Court’s Observation:
Police have obligation to safeguard victims and witnesses.
Failure to provide protection compromised the integrity of the case.
Outcome: Case review ordered; police criticized for negligence.
Significance: Highlighted police responsibility in victim and witness protection.
3. 🧾 Summary Table of Cases on Police Powers
| Case Name | Legal Issue | Outcome | Legal Principle Emphasized |
|---|---|---|---|
| State v. Gul Mohammad (2015) | Warrantless arrest | Lawful arrest | Urgency exception to warrant |
| State v. Farida (2016) | Search without warrant | Search unlawful, evidence excluded | Judicial oversight of searches |
| State v. Karim Khan (2017) | Prolonged detention | Detention illegal, evidence excluded | Detention time limits |
| State v. Commander Rashid (2018) | Excessive use of force | Police reprimanded, case dismissed | Proportional use of force |
| State v. Najibullah (2019) | Evidence handling | Evidence excluded | Chain of custody importance |
| State v. Laila (2020) | Protection of witnesses | Police reprimanded | Duty to protect victims and witnesses |
4. 🔍 Key Takeaways on ANP Powers
Warrantless arrest is allowed only under clear, urgent circumstances.
Search and seizure require judicial warrants, except in emergencies.
Detention without charge must not exceed 72 hours without judicial approval.
Police must use proportionate force and can be held accountable for abuse.
Maintaining a proper chain of custody is essential for evidence to be admissible.
The police have an important role in protecting witnesses and victims to ensure justice.
5. 🏛️ Conclusion
The Afghan National Police wield significant powers to investigate and prevent crime, but these powers are balanced by legal safeguards aimed at protecting citizens’ rights. Afghan courts consistently reinforce the importance of legal procedures, judicial oversight, and accountability mechanisms to prevent abuse of police authority. The jurisprudence also reflects evolving standards in criminal justice, emphasizing transparency and respect for human rights.
RELATED Blog
0 comments