KHUDA BUKHSH And 6 Others vs The STATE
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the High Court refusing the grant of post-arrest bail to seven petitioners accused of murder and causing injuries. The petitioners were alleged to have been armed with firearms and to have fired indiscriminately, resulting in the deaths of two individuals and injuries to ten others, alongside the destruction of property. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to bail given the general nature of the allegations and the absence of specific recovery of weapons or individual role assignments. The Supreme Court held that the inclusion of the petitioners' names in the First Information Report, combined with the specific allegations of indiscriminate firing and property destruction, established a prima facie case of participation in an attack with lethal weapons. Consequently, the Court determined that the petitioners were not entitled to the concession of bail. The principle laid down is that where the prosecution's case prima facie establishes participation in a violent attack with lethal weapons, the absence of specific weapon recovery does not automatically entitle the accused to bail.
- Does the absence of specific recovery of firearms entitle an accused to bail in a case involving allegations of indiscriminate firing?
- Is the inclusion of an accused's name in the First Information Report with a specific role in an attack sufficient to deny bail?
- Does participation in an attack with lethal weapons constitute sufficient grounds to deny the concession of bail?
ORDER
1. MUHAMMAD HALEEM, C.J.--In this petition the allegation against the seven petitioners is that they were armed with fire-arms and had fired indiscriminately injuring ten persons apart from two others, namely Bashir and Shafi, who had died. There is also the further allegation that petitioners 5 to 7 had demolished the Dera of Ghulam Haider so as to render the possession of the complainant party doubtful.
2. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners was that this was a general allegation, and in the absence of any recovery of fire-arms and specific role assigned to each of them, it was a case of further enquiry. The fact that their names transpired in the F.I.R. With the definite role that they had fired indiscriminately injuring a number of persons and that three of them had demolished the Dera of Ghulam Haider prima facie shows that they had participated in the attack with Lethal weapons which is sufficient to deny to them the concession of bail. Accordingly, no interference with the order of the High Court is called for.
3. The petition is thus without any merit, and is dismissed.