Dr. Robin Sardar vs The State

ORDER M.A. ZAFAR, J.- Dr. Robin Sardar petitioner seeks bail after arrest in case FIR No. 149/08 dated 4.5.2008 registered with Police Station Sadar District Hafizabad at the instance of Muhammad Rafique under Section 295-C, PPC regarding the occurrence allegedly taking appeal on 2.5.2008.

2. As per prosecution, Muhammad Rafique complainant moved a written application to SHO alleging therein that on 2.5.2008 at about 4.30 p.m. He along with Muhammad Bashir and Muhammad Zaman residents of the same village was sitting at the clinic of Dr Robin Sardar Masih the present petitioner, who started religious preaching of Christianity and used derogatory remarks about the Holy Prophet (P.B.U.H.) and also said beard of Muslim is alike the beard of Sikhs just to defile the sacred name of the Prophet Muhammad (P.B.U.H.) over which they cursed him and asked to excuse his act but he refused to do so. Consequently, the present case was registered.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that story of FIR is baseless and no occurrence took place on 2.5.2008 as alleged by the prosecution. He further contends that a private person is not competent to lodge an FIR regarding the offence under Section 295-C, PPC in view of bar contained in Section 196, PPC. Reliance is placed on Qari Muhammad Younas vs. The State (2001 YLR 484), Nadir and another vs. The State (2003 P.Cr.L.J. 1459) and Mst. Sardaran Bibi vs. The State (2007 P.Cr.L.J 342).

4. Learned D.P.G, who is assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant submits that beside the complainant the other two witnesses namely Muhammad Bashir and Muhammad Zaman named in the FIR in whose presence petitioner uttered derogatory remarks have implicated the present petitioner in their statements recorded under Section 161, Cr.P.C, by Nazir Ahmad SJ. On 4.5.2008 and by S.P. (Investigation) on 30.6.2008. Petitioner was found guilty during the investigation and he was challaned and after submission of the challan trial of the case has commenced. Charge was framed on 23.8.2008 and case is fixed for 15.9.2008 for recording the prosecution evidence.

5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties I find that the remarks allegedly uttered by the present petitioner against.. Prophet (P.B.U.H.) prima-facie connect him with a commission of offence under Section 295-C, PPC. Besides the complainant both the witnesses Muhammad ..Bashir and Muhammad Zaman in whose presence petitioner -uttered objectionable words in their statement recorded by Nazir Ahmad S.I. On 4.5.2008 have supported the contents of the FIR. Even in their statements recorded by the S.P. (Investigation) on 30.6.2008, they have re-affirmed their earlier statements. Recording of the second statement on 30''6;Q08 necessitated for the reasons that learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Hafizabad while considering all application of they {;sent petitioner observed that in view of Section 1'56-A, .PPC no official below the rank of a Superintendent of Polite is competent to investigate the offence against any person alleged to have been committed by him under Section 295-C, PPC. The matter was investigated by S.P.

(Investigation) who found the petitioner guilty and thereafter challan was submitted in Court. The other objection of the learned counsel for the petitioner that complaint for an offence under Section 295-C, PPC cannot be filed by a private person is misconceived and his arguments are against the statutory provisions contained in Section 196, Cr.P.C. The said section places embargo of not taking cognizance of offence only under Section 295-A, PPC and unless complaint is made by order or under authority from the Central Government from or some official empowered in this behalf by either of the two Governments Court cannot take cognizance. There is no such restriction for taking cognizance of offence punishable under Section 295-C, PPC in Section 196, Cr.P.C. The complainant as well as the two witnesses have no enmity or ill-will to falsely implicate the petitioner in the present case. The offence with which the petitioner has been charged falls within the prohibitory clause. Charge has already been framed and the case is fixed for prosecution evidence and resultantly, there is no good ground to release the petitioner on bail and petition is accordingly dismissed. However, the learned Trial Court is directed to conclude the trial on or before 31:3.2009. Compliance report be submitted through D;R. (Judl.) of this Court.

6. Any observation made in this order would net prejudice the case of either side during the trial.