MUKHTAR AHMED Versus THE STATE

ORDER

1. This bail application has been filed on behalf of applicant, Mukhtar Ahmed, in a case pending under sections 295(c) and 298(c), P.P.C.

2. Briefly the case of prosecution as given in F.I.R. 'is that on 10-8-1987, Allama Ahmed Mian Hamadi made an application to Deputy Commissioner, Sanghar, which was forwarded to S.P., who issued directions to S. H .O. to register the case. The contents of the application are that Qadianis of Village Ahmed Pur, are reciting Holy Quran and also offering blessings to Holy Prophet (Peace be upon him) and at the time of their congregational prayers, recite Azan. The faith of Qadianis has been described in the application and stated that or 9-8-1987, in presence of two eye-witnesses namely, Xar Mohammad and Maulana Hafeezur Rehman Qadri, on the Asar Prayer's time Qadianis recited (Aauzobillah) and (Bismillah) and (Darood-e-Ibrahimi), therefore, a case under section 295(c) may be registered. It is stated in the application that Mukhtar Qadiani, recited (Darood Sharif) S.H.O. after enquiry submitted report to S.P., who directed him to register a case. On 13-8-1987, a case was registered and applicant has been arrested.

3. Mr. Ali Ahmed Tariq submitted that there is freedom to every citizen to profess any faith or religion. He submitted that matter was taken up in Federal Shari'at Court and reported in P L D 1984 FSC 136 and P L D 1985 FSC 89. It is contended that there is no evidence against the applicant for violation of provisions of section 295 (c) or 298 (a), P.P.C. He has argued that in identical cases, bail has been granted.

4. Mr. Syed Sarfraz Ahmed, Assistant Advocate-General, vehemently opposed the bail and submitted that allegation against applicant is serious and offence is punishable with death. He has referred to the cases reported in 1981 P Cr. L J 100 and 1983 PCr.LJ 2394(1).

5. The incident according to F.I.R. took place on 9-8-1987. Complainant made an application to Deputy Commissioner and after enquiry the case was registered on 13-8-1987. There is no provision in Criminal Procedure Code for enquiry before registering the case and there was no reason for complainant to make an application. He should have gone immediately, to the Police Station, Shahdadpur. Complainant, in his application requested the Deputy Commissioner to direct Police to register a case. Complainant is not an eye-witness. He has cited Yar Mohammad and Maulana Hafeezur Rehman as witnesses. The allegation against the applicant in F.I.R. is that at the time of Azan, he recited (Darood Sharif). There is general allegation against Qadianis that they recited Auzobillah, Bismillah and Darood-e-Ibrahimi. Witnesses, Yar Mohammad and Hafeezur Rehman stated that applicant recited Auzibillah, Bismillah and Darood-e-Ibrahimi, The authorities cited by both the counsel are not relevant for the purpose of disposal` of this bail application. Learned A.A.-G. took time to call S.H.O so as to place further material on record. He was granted time but neither S. H .O. appeared nor any material was placed before this Court. The very fact that on application, an enquiry was ordered) and statements of witnesses were recorded. Thereafter, the case was' registered and delay in registering the case was for the purpose of enquiry. From the tentative assessment that in application, that specific allegation against appellant is that he recited Darood Sharif and witnesses stated that he recited Auzobillah, Bismillah, Darood-e Ibrahimi and material available, and delay in F.I.R. and circumstances as stated above, I am of the view that this case is of further enquiry. I, therefore, admit applicant to bail on furnishing one surety in the sum of Rs. 50,000 with P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned Sessions Judge, Sanghar.

6. S.A./M-440/K Bail granted.