1996 P Cr (PLP)

2. The allegations levelled in the F.I.R. against Muhammad Anwar petitioner who belongs to Qadiani sect are that he preached and propagated his faith and invited complainant not to profess Islam but to accept his religion (Qadianiat) and that the petitioner also delivered literature to the complainant including a book titled "Silsala-e-Ahmadia", on this complainant told the petitioner that according to Prophet Hazrat Muhammad (peace be upon him), no prophet has to come after him and anyone claiming himself to be a prophet would be Kafir, Kazib and Dajjaal, whereupon the petitioner rebutted it by saying "it is non sense" and also passed derogatory remarks against Holy Prophet (peace be upon him). The occurrence was witnessed by Sana Ullah and Abdul Hamid.

3. Learned petitioner's counsel argued that the petitioner has been falsely involved on account of a civil litigation which was pending between the petitioner and his rival group of the village who are hands in glove with Riaz Ahmad, S.-I., Incharge Police Post Hajipur, that the petitioner had filed a Writ Petition No.7038 of 1995 against Riaz Ahmad, S.-I and others who fabricated this false case against the petitioner. Further argued that from the perusal of the contents of the F.I.R., at the best a case under section 298-C would be made out which does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. and that the petitioner was entitled to the grant of bail in view of the principle laid down in Naseer Ahmad v. The State 1993 SCMR 153.

4. Learned State Counsel vehemently argued that complainant had no enmity whatsoever with the petitioner and the complainant had no connection or relationship with Riaz Ahmad, S.-I. Incharge of Police Post and that the petitioner committed an offence which falls within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. and that during the investigation certain books were recovered from the petitioner which preach "Qadianiat".

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record.

6. It is true that there existed some litigation between the petitioner and others but the learned counsel could not point out any case in which the complainant was a party. Even the details of enmity and litigation described in the bail petition do not prima facie show that the complainant had any connection whatsoever with the said litigation. Similarly from the record, it is not borne out that the complainant had any relationship/friendship with Riaz Ahmad, S.-I. which would be sufficient to prompt the complainant to play in the hands of the S.-I.

7. There is do force in the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner that from the contents of the F.I.R. no offence under section 295-C, P.P.C. is made out,. against the petitioner, because in the F.I.R. it is clearly stated that the petitioner rebutted the saying of Holy Prophet (peace be upon him) by saying Prima facie it is a case of blasphemy which falls within the ambit of section 295-C which reads:-- "Whoever, by words, either spoken, or written, or by visible representation, or by any imputation, innuendo, or insinuation, directly or indirectly, defiles the sacred name of the Holy Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) shall be punished with death, or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine."

8. The delivery of literature of Qadianiat by the petitioner to the complainant, prima facie makes out a case under section 298-C, P.P.C. Merely I because the offence under section 298-C, P.P.C., is liable to be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, would not entitle the petitioner to the grant of bail as a right. The Courts have to see the attending circumstances of the case.

9. Column 5 of Schedule Second annexed with the Code of Criminal Procedure; 1898 describes the offence under section 298-C, P.P.C. as non bailable. In a non-bailable case, bail cannot be claimed as a right. The Court has to examine the allegations levelled and the circumstances in which the occurrence took place. 9-A. The facts of the case reported in 1993 SCMR 153 are quite different from the facts of the present case and the dictum laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan is not applicable to the facts of this case.

10. The petitioner by spoken words defiled the sacred name of Holy Prophet (peace be upon him) and used derogatory remarks and thereby, prima facie committed offence under section 295-C, P.P.C. which is punishable with death or imprisonment for life which falls within the prohibitory clause of section 497-C, Cr.P.C. In view of what has been discussed above, this petition lacks merits which is accordingly dismissed. N.H.Q./M-64/L Bail refused.