ABDUL LATIF and 3 others vs STATE and another

ORDER

1. Abdul Latif, Yaqoob, Ishaq and Shafi have sought post-arrest bail in case FIR No, 176 registered at P.S. Hasilpur on 17.6.2005 for offences under Sections 295-C/365/342/148/149 PPC. After receipt of MLRs, offences under Sections 337-L(ii) PPC was added. On 9.7.2005, offence under Section 295-B PPC was added, while on 3.10.2005 (during the pendency of this. application), on the receipt of telephone call from SP Office, the IO added offence under Section 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997.

2. 2.According to FIR, the complainant was spokesman of Majlas-i-Tahaffiza-i-Khatama-i-Naboowat . 15/16 houses belonging to Ahmadia sect existed in Chak NO. 192/M within territorial jurisdiction of Police Station Sadar Hasilpur. 5/6 years prior to the occurrence; Ahmadies started building their place of worship which resembled in design with a mosque. The complainant alongwith others asked Ahmadies to stop construction. After negotiations, Ahmadies closed the side doors of their place of worship and also stopped to construct minarets in the year 1999. A month prior to occurrence, the complainant came to know that the main gate of the place of worship had been opened. He alongwith others talked to Abdul Latif, Yaqoob, Sehgal, Ishaq and Shafi Muhammad, who belonged to Ahmadia sect. They stated that the door was damaged due to the rains and that they would close the door again. On the fateful day, during Jumma prayer, the complainant was informed that the door had not been closed. Thus, he alongwith Master Abdul Qayyum and others went to Chak No, 192/M at 3.00 p.m. Yaqoob, Sehgal, Ishaq, Abdul Latif and Shafi Ahmad were summoned in the Chowk, while negotiations regarding closure of the main gate were, in progress, Sana Ullah, Nasir Ahmad, Ishaq, Younus, Sultan, Javed Ahmad, Mushtaq Ahmad, Irshad Ahmad, Nasar Ullah armed with Sota, Muhammad Nawaz armed with Sota and Tariq armed with Sota reached the spot. They started abusing the complainant and also started reciting from the Holy Quran. However, allegedly their interpretation of the holy book was against the faith of Muslims. It was further stated that they used derogatory language against Sallallah-o-Alaih-i-Wasallam. The complainant party admonished them, where-after the situation worsened and all the accused started beating the complainant and Master Muhammad Qayyum with fist and kicks. Both of them were taken in the courtyard of place of worship where they were subjected to torture. According to FIR, on the intervention of Saif-ur-Rehman, Habib-ur-Rehman and Liaqat Ali Patwari, the complainant and Master Qayyum were released after duration of 3/4 hours. After registration of case, supplementary statements of complainant and other PWs were recorded on 27.8.2005. In the supplementary statements, specific allegation of misinterpretation of Qur'an was levelled against Yaqoob, Shafi and Tariq, while specific allegation of using derogatory language towards Sallallah- o-Alaih-i-Wa-Sallam was levelled against Younus and Tariq accused.

3. 3.Learned counsel for the petitioners have argued that the petitioners have been roped in a false case due to sectarian differences and that no specific allegation was levelled against the petitioners in the FIR. It is further argued that offence under Section 365 PPC is not made out, as, according to FIR itself, the detenus were taken to the compound of place of worship within the view of witnesses and that the offences under Section 337-L(ii)/148/149 PPC do not attract prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.P.C. Learned AAG has frankly conceded and argued that only general allegation was levelled against the petitioners in the FIR and that according to prosecution, it could not be said with authenticity that the supplementary statements recorded after registration of the case were trust-worthy and that in any case there was no allegation against the petitioners that they used any -derogatory language towards Sallallah-o-Alaih-i-Wasallam. Learned counsel - appearing on behalf of the complainant have vehemently opposed this application and have argued that specific allegation has been levelled against Yaqoob and Shafi in the supplementary statements recorded on 23.6.2005 of desecration of the holy book. The learned counsel have further argued that misinterpretation of the wholly word "Ahmad" used in the verse constituted an offence under Section 295-C PPC: The learned counsel have further argued that offences under Section 295-C and 295-B PPC, both, attract the mischief of prohibitory clause of Section, 497 Cr.P.C.

4. Thus, the petitioners did not deserve the concession of bail.

5. 4.I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the relevant record of the case.

6. 5.Undeniably, according to FIR, while negotiations were on between the complainant party and Yaqoob, Sehgal, Ishaq, Abdul Latif and Shafi Muhammad accused, rest of the accused intervened and they started misinterpreting the holy book and used derogatory language vis-a-vis Sallallah- o-Alaih-i-Wa-Sallam. It is also in FIR that complainant and Master Qayyum were slapped and given blows with fist and kicks. None of the accused gave any sota blow to them. It is also note worthy that according to FIR, thirteen persons `caused injuries to the complainant and Master Qayyum while according to MLR, complainant Muhammad Ishaq suffered five injuries in total and one of the same was a complaint of pain and none of the injuries was serious in nature. As far as Master Qayyum is concerned, he was never examined by a medical officer. As already noted above, specific allegation against Yaqoob and Shafi, petitioners, were levelled in supplementary statements recorded after ten days of the occurrence. The JO himself, according to report dated 28.9.2005, was not sure about the truthfulness of the supplementary statement of the complainant.

7. The worth of the supplementary statement of the complainant and other PWs would be determined by the learned trial Court after recording of evidence. It is ironical that on 22.9.2005 during the pendency of this petition, on the telephonic advice of DPO, offence under Section 7 of the ATA, 1997, was added on the basis of same available evidence. Admittedly, existed between the complainant party and the accused over the construction of place of worship since, 1999. In the above noted circumstances, I am of the opinion that the allegations against the 'petitioners need further probe and inquiry within the purview of sub-section (2) of Section 497 Cr.P.C. Thus, I am inclined to admit the petitioners to bail subject to their furnishing bail bonds in the sum of rupees fifty thousands each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.