2007K2595 (PLP)
HUMAYUN MUHAMMAD KHAN and 4 others — Applicants Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2007K2595 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | HUMAYUN MUHAMMAD KHAN and 4 others — Applicants Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2007K2595 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2007K2595 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2007K2595 (PLP) (HUMAYUN MUHAMMAD KHAN and 4 others — Applicants Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Headnotes / Summary
S. 498
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 506
Interim pre-arrest bail, confirmation of--F.I.R. was filed after five days of the occurrence
Parties being on inimical terms with each other, prima facie false allegations could not be ruled out
Interim pre-arrest bail granted to accused, was confirmed, in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
SARMAD JALAL OSMANY, J.
Leaned 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. 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. 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 mi the same day in the same police station. Finally, it appears that the parties are on inimical terms with each other. 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. H.B.T./H-15/K Bail confirmed.