MIRAN BUKSH and 2 others vs STATE
This matter arises from a criminal bail application filed by Miran Buksh and two others seeking pre-arrest or post-arrest bail in F.I.R. No. 697/2010 recorded at Police Station Gadap for an alleged incident involving firing by nine persons resulting in a single fatal injury to the complainant's nephew. The core legal question concerns whether bail should be granted when multiple accused are nominated for firing but only a single injury with characteristics of close-range firing is sustained, and no corroborative evidence such as bullet empties or mark hits are recovered. The Sindh High Court held that the case calls for further inquiry into which of the assailants caused the fatal injury and the exact distance from which the shot was fired, mirroring principles established in precedents where multiple assailants caused single injuries. Consequently, the court allowed the bail application and confirmed the interim bail granted to the applicants. The key principle laid down is that where numerous accused are attributed generalized firing resulting in only a single injury and lacking corroborative physical recoveries, a case for further inquiry under criminal jurisprudence is made out, warranting the grant of bail.
- Whether bail can be granted when multiple accused persons are alleged to have fired but only a single injury is sustained by the victim?
- Does the absence of corroborative recoveries such as bullet empties and wall mark hits create a case for further inquiry under criminal law?
- Whether the presence of charring or blackening around a penetrating wound indicating close-range firing warrants further examination at the bail stage?
ORDER
1. F.I.R. No, 697/2010 was recorded at Police Station Gadap on 06.10.2010 for an incident alleged to have occurred about 7 hours earlier. Complainant Karim Bux stated that he lives at Surjani Town alongwith his family and a nephew. During Ramadan they had a dispute with Bugtis due to fight among children. Complainant side tried to ignore. On 6.10.2010 at 'about 6.00 a.m. 9 persons including present three applicants came to the house of the, complainant. They had guns, pistols and dandas in their hands. As soon as they came, they started firing. One fire hit nephew of the complainant. Assailants went away while resorting to aerial firing and took away a pistol of a son of the complainant.
2. Learned counsel for applicant submitted that enmity is admitted in F.I.R. he submitted that it is alleged in F.I.R. that 9' accused persons fired but only one bullet hit a particle person. No empty has been recovered. No blood-stained clothes have been recovered and no pock marks have been found on any wall or anywhere else in the premises while it is alleged that 9 persons resorted to firing. It is stated that deceased suffered only one injury and even that injury was a punctured wound having inverted missing and there was blackening of penetrating wound which shows that there was fire shot from closed range. Learned counsel relied upon Jaffar and others v. The State (1980 SCM R 784), Asmatullah v. The State, etc. (2011 PSC [Cr1.] 60), Nooral v. The State (NLR 1990 Cr.L.J. 509), Syed Amanullah Shah v. The State and another (PLD 1996 SC 241), Amir v. The State (PLD 1972 SC 277) and Tariq Bashir and 5 others v. The State (PLD 1995 SC 34). Learned Addl. P.G. opposed this bail application and submitted that applicants are nominated in the F.I.R. and specific role had been assigned to them. He further submitted that motive is clearly stated in the F.I.R.
3. However, on the question of non-recovery of any bullet or blood-stained earth or absence of any mark on the wall and blackening of penetrating wound learned. Addl. P.G. conceded that what has been submitted by the learned counsel for applicants is correct.
4. In Jaffar's case (supra) where three persons were alleged to have given hatchet blows the Supreme Court observed that it was yet to be determined as to who caused fatal blow and granted bail. In present case 9 persons are alleged to have fired and there is only one injury. In Asmatullah's case (supra) there was only one injury attributed and bail was granted by Honourable Supreme on ground further enquiry as there were stated to be three assailants. Facts of these two reported cases decided by the Honourable Supreme Court are, similar to the case in hand where there are 9 assailants and one injury. That injury also has charring and therefore it is yet to be seen as to for what distance was the fatal shot fired. Moreover, 9 persons have been alleged to have fired and neither any empty was recovered not any mark on any wall was noted or hitting of bullet or any object is stated.
5. Result of the above discussion is that this bail application is allowed and interim bail granted to the applicants is confirmed on the same terms.