2007 P Cr (PLP)

FAZAL-E-MIRAN CHAUHAN, J.

Petitioner Mst. Sardaran Bibi, seeks post-arrest bail, in case F.I.R. No.565, dated 26-8-2006, offence under section 295-B, P.P.C. registered at Police Station, Raiwind Saddar Kasur for the allegation that Shaukat Masih alias Shoka, co-accused of the petitioner, used to do Taveezganda and was having sacred Surhas of the Holy Qur'an, for derogatory purpose; co-accused disclosed that the present petitioner-Mst. Sardaran Bibi was also involved in this business, hence, this case.

2. It is contended by the learned counsel that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely roped in this case by the complainant with mala fide intention. The petitioner has been involved in this case on the basis of statement made by her co-accused, which is not admissible under the law. There is a delay of one day in lodging the F.I.R., which has not been explained. Further contends that there is no independent witness against the petitioner, which makes here case that of further inquiry within the purview of subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. The offence under section 295-A, P.P.C. is an offence against the State and not against an individual and is to be prosecuted according to the procedure laid down in section 196, Cr.P.C. and these offences are only against the State and section 295-A, P.P.C. is included in these offence, therefore, the petitioner deserves the concession of bail.

3. Conversely, learned State counsel opposed the bail petition contending that the petitioner is named in the F.I.R. and she along with her co-accused played with the sentiments of Muslims. The offence, committed by the petitioner, entails punishment of imprisonment for life, which falls within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. hence, the petitioner does not deserve any concession.

4. Having given the profound consideration to the respective arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, it manifests that Chapter XV of P.P.C. relates to offences with regard to religion. Section 295, P.P.C. is attracted against a person or group of persons who, with the intention to insult the religion of any class of persons or with the knowledge that any class of persons is likely to consider such destruction, damage or defilement as an insult to their religion.

5. Section 295-A, P.P.C. is attracted against a person, who deliberately and maliciously insults or attempts to insult the religion or religious belief of a person or class of persons. All such offences are against the State. All offences against the State are tried under section 196, Cr.P.C. thus, the offence under section 295-A, being an offence against the State is to be tried under section 196, Cr.P.C. Joint reading of offence under section 196 Cr.P.C. and section 295-A, P.P.C. demonstrate that offence under 295-A, P.P.C. is not an offence against an individual, but against the State, therefore, the Court can take cognizance in the offence under section 295-A, P.P.C. only, if the complaint is made or the case is registered by an order or under an authority from the Central or Provincial Government. The natural corollary is that in view of the provision of section 196, Cr.P.C., an offence under the State can be taken cognizance by a Court, if the law is set in motion as required by law. No individual can lodge a complaint under section 295-A, P.P.C. directly.

6. In the instant case, the complainant of the F.I.R. is neither the Central Government nor Provincial Government and he was not authorized to act on their behalf to lodge the F.I.R. Since the Court cannot take cognizance of a case, when the complaint is not lodged by the Central or Provincial Government, thus, the argument that an individual can lodge the F.I.R. is .without substance, as the whole exercise of lodging of F.I.R. on the complaint of a private person is no legal consequence.

7. In this view of the matter, there are sufficient grounds and reasons to believe that the case of the petitioner requires further inquiry into the guilt, therefore, this bail petition is allowed and the petitioner is admitted to post-arrest bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.30,000 (Rupees thirty thousand only) with one surety in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court. H.B.T./S-200/L Bail allowed.