ANWAR MASIH Versus State
The petitioner sought post-arrest bail in a case registered under sections 295 and 295-A of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, following allegations of blasphemy. The core legal question was whether, given the circumstances and the nature of the evidence, the petitioner was entitled to the concession of bail pending trial. The petitioner contended that the case was a result of previous enmity, noting that he was a witness in a prior criminal case against the complainant and his father. The court observed that the complainant was the sole witness to the alleged occurrence and that there was prima facie evidence of ill-will between the parties. Furthermore, the petitioner had no prior criminal history and was a laborer with dependents. The court held that the petitioner's guilt required further inquiry, thereby satisfying the criteria for bail. Consequently, the court allowed the petition and admitted the petitioner to bail, subject to the furnishing of bail bonds. The principle established is that where the prosecution case rests on a single witness and there is evidence of prior enmity, the case warrants further inquiry, justifying the grant of bail.
- Does the existence of prior enmity between the complainant and the accused justify a grant of bail?
- Is a case based on the statement of a single witness sufficient to deny bail when the guilt requires further inquiry?
- Can the absence of a criminal history and the status of the accused as a sole breadwinner be considered grounds for bail in non-bailable offences?
- Section 295, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 295-A, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
Petitioner seeks bail in a case registered vide F.I.R. No.625, dated 28-11-2003 under sections 295, 295-A, P.P.C. Police Station Shandara Town, Lahore, registered on the statement of Naseer Ahmad who stated that he converted to Islam about three months prior to the occurrence, that on the fateful day and time he was asked by the petitioner as to why he had kept beard to which he replied that it was the practice of Prophets and petitioner allegedly started abusing the Prophets.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed on record affidavit of petitioner to the effect that he never abused the Prophets, that on account of previous enmity the case has been registered, that petitioner is a witness in the case registered vide F.I.R. No.19 of 2002 of the same police station in which the complainant and his father were the accused. Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner is a poor labourer and he has three minor children to look after. Lastly submitted that in Criminal Miscellaneous No.676 of 2000 convict under section 295-A, and C, P.P.C. was acquitted on the affidavit disowning that he never committed such an offence.
3. Learned Additional Advocate-General has opposed the petition. He submits that the petitioner is guilty of a serious offence, that the same falls in the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. and no case for bail at this stage is made out.
4. I have heard petitioner's learned counsel and the learned Law Officer and have gone through the record with the assistance of the latter.
5. Petitioner has placed on record an affidavit to the following effect:-- urdu 1638
The case has been registered on the statement of a person (complainant) who converted from Christianity to Islam only three months prior to the occurrence. Learned Law Officer concedes that except the complainant there is no other eye-witnesses of occurrence.
Prima facie there is some old ill-will between the petitioner and complainant. There is no denial that in a previous criminal case petitioner's father is an eye-witness against the complainant. It is further A not denied that petitioner has no previous criminal history and he is a poor labourer and has three children to look after. In the afore-referred circumstances the question of petitioner's guilt would require further inquiry. Resultantly this petition is allowed and subject to petitioner's furnishing bonds in the sum of Rs.20,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court he shall be released on bail.
H.B.T./A-511/L Bail granted.
Cited by 1 case
- Haji NASARULLAH vs The STATE 2014 MLD 617