HUMAYUN MUHAMMAD KHAN and 4 otherss vs THE STATE
This matter concerns an application for confirmation of interim bail filed by the applicants (Humayun Muhammad Khan and others) in relation to an F.I.R. registered at Police Station Jackson. The core legal question was whether the applicants were entitled to the confirmation of their interim bail given the allegations of political rivalry, delayed registration of the F.I.R., and the existence of a counter-F.I.R. filed by the accused party. The Court observed that the F.I.R. was lodged five days after the alleged incident, and that the parties were involved in ongoing civil and rent litigation. Furthermore, the Court noted that the accused party had already registered a prompt counter-F.I.R. regarding the same incident. Finding that the allegations appeared prima facie questionable and potentially motivated by political animosity or harassment, the Court confirmed the interim bail previously granted to the applicants. The judgment reinforces the principle that where there is a significant delay in reporting an incident and evidence of pre-existing enmity or counter-litigation, the court may exercise discretion to confirm bail as false implication cannot be ruled out.
- Does a significant delay in filing an F.I.R. coupled with pre-existing enmity between parties justify the confirmation of interim bail?
- Can the existence of a prior counter-F.I.R. regarding the same incident be a ground for confirming bail for the accused in a subsequent F.I.R.?
ORDER
1. ' SARMAD JALAL OSMANY, J.---Learned counsel submits that the F.I.R. In question is totally motivated and lodged malafidely by the Complainant who is the political opponent of the applicant being the sitting Nazim of Karachi Town. According to learned counsel, the contents of the F.I.R. Would disclose that it has been filed belatedly viz after five days of the occurrence which in itself raises doubt in the matter as to consultation etc. Prior to filing of the same. Secondly, per learned counsel, the parties otherwise are inimical to each other as there are civil suits and rent cases pending amongst them. Finally, Learned counsel has submitted that in fact the F.I.R. In question filed at Police Station Jackson on 23-9-2006 is a counterblast of the earlier F.I.R. Filed by accused Muhammad Ayaz Khan, which was promptly filed Hence, learned counsel has submitted that the present F.I.R. Against the applicant accused is only meant to harass and humiliate them in order to gain an edge over them politically by the Complainant.
2. ' On the other hand, Learned State Counsel has opposed the grant of the Bail Applicant on the ground that per para. 10, thereof the prayer is for protective bail.
3. ' I have heard learned counsel and gone through the file. It would be seen that the F.I.R. In question being No,299 of 2006 of Police Station Jackson filed on 23-9-2006 relates to the alleged incident which occurred on 18-9-2006 whereby the applicant/accused threatened the complainant Party with dire consequences unless the cases against the latter were not withdrawn. Secondly, it appears that earlier an F.I.R. No, 292 of 2006 regarding the same incident filed by the accused party was recorded on 18-9-2006 on the same day in the same police station. Finally, it appears that the parties are on inimical terms with each other.
4. ' In the circumstances, in my opinion, prima facie, false allegations cannot be ruled out. For the foregoing reasons, I would, therefore, confirm the interim bail already granted to the applicants on the same terms and conditions. Bail application stands disposed of.