SOBOO and 5 others vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a bail application filed by six applicants charged with offences involving criminal trespass, theft of livestock, and the use of firearms. The core legal question before the Court was whether the applicants were entitled to post-arrest bail given the specific allegations of their involvement and the evidence recovered. The Court held that the applicant caught at the scene with a firearm and ammunition, Soboo, was not entitled to bail at this stage as there was sufficient material to suggest his guilt. Conversely, the Court granted bail to the remaining five applicants, noting that although they were alleged to have fired weapons, no injuries were sustained by the complainant party, and they had voluntarily surrendered to the trial court. The key principle laid down is that while the recovery of incriminating evidence at the scene of the crime constitutes reasonable grounds to believe an accused is guilty, the absence of injuries to the complainant party, combined with voluntary surrender, may justify the grant of bail to co-accused persons.
- Does the recovery of a firearm and ammunition from an accused at the scene of the crime preclude the grant of bail?
- Can bail be granted to co-accused persons who allegedly fired weapons but caused no injuries to the complainant party?
- Does voluntary surrender to the trial court constitute a valid ground for the consideration of bail?
ORDER
1. ' It is alleged that the applicants were seen by complainant Nazal and others while they were driving away the cow of the complainant Nazal from his house, after having trespassed into the same and making preparation to commit such an offence and while Khuda Bux, Hamzo and Zulfiqar Ali applicants were armed with guns, applicant Soboo was also armed with gun, Mumtaz Ali and Ali Gul were armed with Kalashnikov rifles and further that when complainant and others raised cries, the applicants allegedly fired the klashnikov rifle and the guns straight towards the complainant party, which attracted witnesses Abdul Ghafoor and others; P.W. Abdul Ghafoor fired from his gun upon the culprits which made them to leave the said cow at the place of incident, and then they started to run away but they were encircled by the complainant party and applicant Soboo was duly caught alongwith his gun, whereas remaining culprits made good their escape; six live cartridges were also recovered from his possession; three dogs of the complainant party died during the incident while the applicants allegedly fired their fire-arms.
2. ' Mr. Mushtaque Ahmed Kourejo learned State Counsel has opposed the grant of the ball.
3. ' It is contended on behalf of the applicants that applicants Ali Gul, Mumtaz Ali, Zulfiqar Ali and Hamza Ali are respectable persons and they voluntarily surrendered themselves before the trial Court, whereby they were remanded to custody and thus, no recovery is made alleged from them; it is further contended that though applicants allegedly fired their respective fire-arms yet none from the complainant party sustained any injury.
4. ' Applicant Soboo was allegedly caught by the complainant party at the place of incident alongwith gun and live cartridges were also recovered by them from his possession. Hence at this stage of the case, it cannot be said that he is not guilty of the offence with which he stands charged.
5. ' With regard to the remaining five accused/applicants, they are alleged to have run away after the complainant party chased them to apprehend them and, though they are said to have fired from their respective fire-arms on the complainant party, yet, no injury is suffered by anybody from the complainant party. Accordingly, remaining five applicants namely Khuda Bux, Ali Gul, Mumtaz Ali, Zulfiqar Ali and Hamz Ali are admitted to bail, each in the sum of Rs,100,000 and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.