Dr. MUHAMMAD ASLAM vs The STATE and another
This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by Dr. Muhammad Aslam, who was charged with possessing and disseminating inflammatory, sectarian, and anti-state literature at his clinic. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner propagated hatred against the Pakistan Armed Forces and incited youth toward militancy. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the nature of the allegations and the evidence presented. The Lahore High Court held that while the allegations were serious, the prosecution failed to provide cogent and believable evidence connecting the petitioner to the alleged intent to incite violence or sectarian hatred. The Court observed that the mere possession of books, without clear evidence of criminal intent, did not justify continued incarceration, especially since the offences charged did not fall within the prohibitory clause of the relevant bail statute. The Court affirmed that the gravity of an offence alone is insufficient for denial of bail without supporting evidence. Consequently, the Court granted post-arrest bail, emphasizing that the petitioner's continued detention was unnecessary for the prosecution's case.
- Does the mere possession of literature alleged to be inflammatory constitute sufficient grounds to deny bail?
- Is the gravity of an offence sufficient to deny bail in the absence of cogent evidence?
- When does an offence fall outside the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Section 497(1), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Article 19, Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973
ORDER
' SHAHID HAMEED DAR, J.---The story of F.I.R. As narrated by Sabir Hussain S.I. (complainant) is that he received a spy information that Dr. Muhammad Aslam (petitioner) who had set-up a Hepatitis Research Center/Clinic, at Qadir Colony Bhimber road Gujrat, propagated religious/sectarian hatred amongst the youth, considered militant-attacks on Pak-Army justified, held the army apostate, published and disseminated his detestable thoughts amongst the publicat-large and that he possessed incendiary literature, whereon he constituted a raiding party and raided his clinic at 11:35 a.m. On 16-5-2014; he (petitioner) was present there and he had before him a number of books and journals, including one of his own, placed on a table which contained contemptuous, sacrilegious and infuriating material against the Pakistan Armed Forces, besides highly provocative, inflammatory and stirring stuff, inducing the youth to launch terrorist attacks and cause mass-scale destruction; these books and journals were taken into possession by the police through a memo of recovery, the accused/petitioner was taken into custody for having possessed, published and disseminated highly infuriating, noxious and poisonous material which could malign the youth and drive them to militancy against the interests of the country.
2. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is observed that the petitioner, who is a doctor by profession and runs a clinic, has been burdened with the liability of such allegations, which are horrifying as well as unfortunate. The language used in the F.I.R. Paints the petitioner, as though he was a devil and bent on reducing everything around him to ashes. Is it only the blame-game or an incident worth believing? Mere heinousness or gravity of an offence means little in the eye of law, unless it is backed by cogent and believable evidence which, incidentally lacks in this case. The "rebellious conduct" of the petitioner has been highlighted in the F.I.R. By using different adjectives or locutions but without hinting at any incriminating circumstance against him. Some books and journals, with the description as given above lay on his table but there existed no evidence that he possessed them with intent to stir up religious, sectarian or ethnic differences or he was likely to do so. The contents of the book, written by the petitioner, appear to have been blown out of proportion by the complainant, as argued by the former's learned counsel, who believed that freedom of thought and expression thereof stood guaranteed by the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 and petitioner's book contained no mutinous material, which he wrote in accord with his understanding of the tenets of Islam, seeking enlightenment from the Glorious Qura'an. This argument of the learned counsel may be a food for thought for the learned trial court, at trial. Would possession of the said books and journals by the petitioner be enough to constitute the offences, he is confronted with, is a question of crucial nature which may be best answered during the course of the trial. All other allegations regarding propagation of his "nefarious thoughts" and maligning the minds of the youth are not presently backed by any connecting evidence. The offences against him do not fall under the prohibitory clause of section 497(1), Cr.P.0 He is behind the bars since 16-5-2014 and is no more required for the purpose of recovery etc. Hence, his further incarceration may be of no consequence to the prosecution case. Therefore, this application is accepted and petitioner is admitted to postarrest- bail subject to furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs,5,00,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.