HUMAYUN MUHAMMAD KHAN & 4 others vs STATE
This matter concerns an application for the confirmation of interim bail filed by the applicants, who are facing criminal charges in FIR No. 299/2006. The core legal question was whether the applicants were entitled to the confirmation of their interim bail given the circumstances surrounding the registration of the FIR. The applicants contended that the FIR was lodged with mala fide intent, motivated by political rivalry, and filed with a significant delay of five days. Furthermore, the defense argued that the FIR was a counterblast to an earlier FIR filed by the accused party regarding the same incident, and that the parties were embroiled in ongoing civil and rent litigation. The Court, upon reviewing the record, observed that the FIR was indeed filed days after the alleged occurrence and that a prior FIR regarding the same incident had been registered by the accused party. Finding that the allegations could prima facie be false due to the existing enmity and the suspicious timing of the FIR, the Court confirmed the interim bail previously granted to the applicants.
- Does a significant delay in filing an FIR, coupled with existing enmity between parties, justify the confirmation of interim bail?
- Can an FIR filed as a counterblast to an earlier FIR be considered a ground for granting bail?
- Is the existence of political rivalry and prior civil litigation between parties a relevant factor in assessing the prima facie truthfulness of criminal allegations?
ORDER
1. Learned counsel submits that the FIR 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.
2. According to learned counsel the contents of the FIR 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 FIR in question filed as PS Jackson on 23.9.2006 is a counterblast of the earlier FIR filed by accused Muhammad Ayaz Khan which was promptly filed. Hence learned counsel has submitted that the present FIR against the applicant/accused is only meant to harass and humiliate them in order to gain an edge over them politically by the complainant. On the other hand, Learned State Counsel has opposed the grant of the bail application 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 FIR in question being No, 299/2006 of PS 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 FIR No, 292/2006 regarding the same incident filed by the accused party was recorded on 18.9.2006 on the same day in the same PS. 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