Alamgir Khan vs The State and another
The petitioner, Alamgir Khan, sought post-arrest bail in connection with FIR No. 990 of 2019, registered under sections 124-A, 290, and 291 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, section 16 of the Maintenance of Public Order 1960, and section 6 of the Punjab Sound Systems (Regulations) Act 2015. The allegations stemmed from an incendiary speech delivered on Mall Road, Lahore, purportedly inciting hatred against State institutions. The core legal question was whether the petitioner’s conduct, characterized by the defense as an emotional outburst by a youth affected by the war on terror, warranted continued incarceration pending trial. The Supreme Court held that while freedom of speech is subject to reasonable restrictions under Article 19 of the Constitution, the determination of whether the petitioner’s specific discourse violated these restrictions is a matter for the trial court to decide after evidence is concluded. Emphasizing that the State should be benign toward citizen dissent, the Court granted bail, noting that the petitioner’s continued incarceration served no useful purpose to the prosecution, and ordered his release upon furnishing a bail bond.
- Whether the determination of whether a speech violates reasonable restrictions under Article 19 of the Constitution is a matter to be settled at the bail stage or by the trial court after evidence?
- Does the State's obligation to be benign toward citizen dissent affect the court's discretion in granting bail for charges of sedition?
- Is the continued incarceration of a student accused of sedition justified when the prosecution's case requires further evidentiary trial?
- Section 124-A, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 290, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 291, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 16, Maintenance of Public Order 1960
- Section 6, Punjab Sound Systems (Regulations) Act 2015
- Article 19, Constitution of Pakistan 1973
ORDER
QAZI MUHAMMAD AMIN AHMED, J.---Behind bars since 01.12.2019, Alamgir Khan alias Alamgir Wazir, petitioner , seeks admission to bail; it is alleged that on 29.11.2019, at about 4:30 p.m., he delivered an incendiary speech, on a loud speaker , to a rally comprising 250/300 participants on the Mall Road Lahore; speakers incited the participants through inflammatory addresses against the State institutions, video streamed by the officials deployed at the scene captured the incident; a case vide FIR No.990 of 2019 under sections 124-A, 290, 291 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 read with section 16 of the Maintenance of Public Order 1960 and section 6 of the Punjab Sound Systems (Regulations) Act 2015 was registered on the complaint of Muhammad Nawaz SI with Police Station Civil Lines Lahore on 01.12.2019.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner , hailing from the District South Wazirastan, is an errant youth, emotionally devastated by colossal loss of lives of his clan including that of his father at the hands of Taliban in the aftermaths of war against terror and as such his outburst cannot be viewed as seditious within the contemplation of section 124-A of the Code ibid; it is next argued that offence of sedition though possibly punishable with imprisonment for life, nonetheless, carries the possibility of shorter sentence extending to three years while the coordinate charges do not attract the "prohibition". Referring to clean antecedents, Mr. Abdul Latif Afridi, ASC, under instructions, emphatically pledged petitioner's discreet and cautio us future conduct. Learned Law Officer contested the plea by relying upon the transcript of the impugned speech to argue that the petitioner not only disrupted the public life on a thoroug hfare in the metropolis but also incited sedition to the public at large and, thus, his release would be prejudicial to peace, security and tranquility .
3. Heard. Record perused.
4. Freedom of speech is a most cherished right, guaranteed under the Constitution; it is certainly subject to "reasonable restrictions " within the contemplation of Article 19 thereof; whether in his outburst, mentioned in the transcript, the petitioner contravened the stipulated restrictions, is a question to be best settled by the trial Court, having regard to the totality of the impug ned discourse, after conclusion of evidence. State must be benign upon dissent and criticism of its citizens, no matter how crudely articulated or misplaced, on the issues of desecration of the right to life during war through opinions, though subjective, nonetheless, actuated by personal anguish; it must stand on surer foundations.
Petitioner is a student; his days of incarce ration are serving no useful purpose to the prosecution. Criminal Petition is converted into appeal and same is allowed; the petitioner shall be released upon furnishing bond in the sum of Rs.100,000/- with one surety in the like to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Duty Magistrate.