PLJ 2011 Cr.C. (Lahore) 926
[Multan Bench Multan]
Present: Rauf Ahmad Sheikh, J.
MAZHAR ABBASS--Petitioner
versus
STATE and another--Respondents
Crl. Misc. No. 2049-B of 2011, decided 20.6.2011.
Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 (V of 1898)--
----S. 497(2)--Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, Ss. 298-A/295-A--Pakistan Arms Ordinance, 11, 1965, S. 3--Bail, grant of--Further inquiry--No order was obtained before launching the investigation of the case u/S. 295-A PPC and placing the other matters in this regard before trial Court for its consideration--Cognizance was taken on application of Judicial mind on the matter placed before Court--No permission had been granted till today by the competent authority and this fact show that investigation had commenced and trial Court had taken cognizance against provision of Section 196 Cr.P.C. which was enacted in order to cradicate the possibility of false implication as the same is not uncommon due to sectarian feelings in our society--Many person belonging to Ahl-e-Sunnat-wal-Jamat in addition to the person belonging to `Shia Sect' had submitted affidavits, wherein they had categorically refuted the allegations leveled by the complainant against petitioner--Allegations against petitioner clearly need further probe and inquiry within the meanings of Section 497(2) Cr.P.C.--Maximum sentence for the offence punishable u/S. 298-A PPC is three years and the same does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.P.C.--Bail accepted. [P. 928] A & B
M/s. Ch. Saghir Ahmad and Ghulam Asghar Sajid Langrah, Advocates, learned counsels for Petitioner.
Syed Athar Hassan Shah Bukhari, Advocate, learned counsel for Complainant.
Mr. Muhammad Amjad Rafique, learned DPG for State.
Date of hearing: 20.6.2011.
Order
The petitioner seeks post arrest bail in case FIR No. 545/2010, dated 17.12.2010, under Sections 298-A/295-A PPC, read with Section. 3 of the Ordinance, II of 1965, registered at P.S. Taunsa Sharif District D.G. Khan.
2. Briefly stated the prosecution version as set forth in the FIR is that on 17.12.2010 at about 6-15 p.m., the petitioner on the loud speaker hurled abuses and derogatory remarks in respect of wives (Umehat-ul-Momineen) and Companions, of the Holy Prophet (PBUH) and thus has outraged the religious feelings of the Muslims and also flared up the sectarian disharmony and hatred.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner is highly educated person and is serving as Head Master of a Government School, who has been involved in the false case due to sectarian ill-will; that a large number of `Sunni' and `Shai' Muslims have submitted affidavits during the investigation, whereby they have categorically stated that they heard the speech delivered by the petitioner and no abuse or derogatory remark was passed by him; that the offence punishable under Section 295-A PPC is non-cognizable in view of the provisions of Section 196 Cr.P.C. and that no permission has been obtained before lodging the FIR and that maximum sentence for the offence punishable under Section 295-A PPC is three years so the same does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.P.C. In support of the contentions raised reliance is placed on PLD 2005 Lahore 631 and 2007 P.Cr.L.J. 342.
4. Learned DPG and learned counsel for the complainant have vehemently opposed the petition. It is contended that no prior permission to register the case under Section 295-A PPC is required and the same is needed only before beginning the investigation or commencement of the trial; that request for grant of permission has been made vide letter dated 26.1.2011 and the same is awaited and that the petitioner created sectarian hatred by using derogatory remarks and hurling abuses against the holy personages so he is not entitled to the concession of bail. In support of the contentions raised reliance is placed on 2007 P.Cr.LJ. 864, 2006 SCMR 483 and 2006 P.Cr.LJ. 1564.
5. Admittedly, no order was obtained before launching the investigation of the case under Section 295-A PPC and placing the other matters in this regard before the trial Court for its consideration. The cognizance is taken on application of judicial mind on the matter placed before the Court. In spite of letter dated 26.1.2011, no permission has been granted till today by the competent authority and this fact shows that investigation had commenced and the trial Court had taken the cognizance against the provision of Section 196 Cr.P.C. which is enacted in order to eradicate the possibility of false implication as the same is not uncommon due to sectarian feelings in our society. Many persons belonging to Ahl-e-Sunnat-wal-Jamat in addition to the persons belonging to "Shia Sect" had submitted affidavits, wherein they had categorically refuted the allegations leveled by the complainant against the petitioner. In these circumstances, the allegations against the petitioner clearly need further probe and inquiry within the meanings of Section 497(2) Cr.P.C. Maximum sentence for the offence punishable uncle Section 298-A PPC is three years and the same does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.P.C.
6. For the reasons supra, the petition is accepted and petitioner is admitted to post arrest bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 200,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.
(A.S.) Bail accepted.
[Multan Bench Multan]
Present: Rauf Ahmad Sheikh, J.
MAZHAR ABBASS--Petitioner
versus
STATE and another--Respondents
Crl. Misc. No. 2049-B of 2011, decided 20.6.2011.
Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 (V of 1898)--
----S. 497(2)--Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, Ss. 298-A/295-A--Pakistan Arms Ordinance, 11, 1965, S. 3--Bail, grant of--Further inquiry--No order was obtained before launching the investigation of the case u/S. 295-A PPC and placing the other matters in this regard before trial Court for its consideration--Cognizance was taken on application of Judicial mind on the matter placed before Court--No permission had been granted till today by the competent authority and this fact show that investigation had commenced and trial Court had taken cognizance against provision of Section 196 Cr.P.C. which was enacted in order to cradicate the possibility of false implication as the same is not uncommon due to sectarian feelings in our society--Many person belonging to Ahl-e-Sunnat-wal-Jamat in addition to the person belonging to `Shia Sect' had submitted affidavits, wherein they had categorically refuted the allegations leveled by the complainant against petitioner--Allegations against petitioner clearly need further probe and inquiry within the meanings of Section 497(2) Cr.P.C.--Maximum sentence for the offence punishable u/S. 298-A PPC is three years and the same does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.P.C.--Bail accepted. [P. 928] A & B
M/s. Ch. Saghir Ahmad and Ghulam Asghar Sajid Langrah, Advocates, learned counsels for Petitioner.
Syed Athar Hassan Shah Bukhari, Advocate, learned counsel for Complainant.
Mr. Muhammad Amjad Rafique, learned DPG for State.
Date of hearing: 20.6.2011.
Order
The petitioner seeks post arrest bail in case FIR No. 545/2010, dated 17.12.2010, under Sections 298-A/295-A PPC, read with Section. 3 of the Ordinance, II of 1965, registered at P.S. Taunsa Sharif District D.G. Khan.
2. Briefly stated the prosecution version as set forth in the FIR is that on 17.12.2010 at about 6-15 p.m., the petitioner on the loud speaker hurled abuses and derogatory remarks in respect of wives (Umehat-ul-Momineen) and Companions, of the Holy Prophet (PBUH) and thus has outraged the religious feelings of the Muslims and also flared up the sectarian disharmony and hatred.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner is highly educated person and is serving as Head Master of a Government School, who has been involved in the false case due to sectarian ill-will; that a large number of `Sunni' and `Shai' Muslims have submitted affidavits during the investigation, whereby they have categorically stated that they heard the speech delivered by the petitioner and no abuse or derogatory remark was passed by him; that the offence punishable under Section 295-A PPC is non-cognizable in view of the provisions of Section 196 Cr.P.C. and that no permission has been obtained before lodging the FIR and that maximum sentence for the offence punishable under Section 295-A PPC is three years so the same does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.P.C. In support of the contentions raised reliance is placed on PLD 2005 Lahore 631 and 2007 P.Cr.L.J. 342.
4. Learned DPG and learned counsel for the complainant have vehemently opposed the petition. It is contended that no prior permission to register the case under Section 295-A PPC is required and the same is needed only before beginning the investigation or commencement of the trial; that request for grant of permission has been made vide letter dated 26.1.2011 and the same is awaited and that the petitioner created sectarian hatred by using derogatory remarks and hurling abuses against the holy personages so he is not entitled to the concession of bail. In support of the contentions raised reliance is placed on 2007 P.Cr.LJ. 864, 2006 SCMR 483 and 2006 P.Cr.LJ. 1564.
5. Admittedly, no order was obtained before launching the investigation of the case under Section 295-A PPC and placing the other matters in this regard before the trial Court for its consideration. The cognizance is taken on application of judicial mind on the matter placed before the Court. In spite of letter dated 26.1.2011, no permission has been granted till today by the competent authority and this fact shows that investigation had commenced and the trial Court had taken the cognizance against the provision of Section 196 Cr.P.C. which is enacted in order to eradicate the possibility of false implication as the same is not uncommon due to sectarian feelings in our society. Many persons belonging to Ahl-e-Sunnat-wal-Jamat in addition to the persons belonging to "Shia Sect" had submitted affidavits, wherein they had categorically refuted the allegations leveled by the complainant against the petitioner. In these circumstances, the allegations against the petitioner clearly need further probe and inquiry within the meanings of Section 497(2) Cr.P.C. Maximum sentence for the offence punishable uncle Section 298-A PPC is three years and the same does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.P.C.
6. For the reasons supra, the petition is accepted and petitioner is admitted to post arrest bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 200,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.
(A.S.) Bail accepted.
No comments:
Post a Comment