S-296 [Disturbing religious assembly]

Case Citation:
2014 Y L R 2134 [Sindh]

JUDGES:
Before  Naimatullah Phulpoto and Muhammad Iqbal Kalhoro, JJ

PARTIES:
RAZA MUHAMMAD SHAH---Applicant

Versus

THE STATE---Respondent

CASE BACKGROUND ( FACTS)

(a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---

This order shall dispose of Cr. Bail Application No. D-73 of 2014 filed on behalf of applicant
Raza Muhammad Shah in Crime No. 252/2013 Police Station Naushahro Feroze for the offences
under sections 295-A, 296, 298, 341, P. P. C. read with section 9 ATA 1997 & 3 WPR. C
Speaker Sound Ordinance.

It is further alleged in the F. I. R. that accused constable Raza Muhammad Shah had erected
speed breaker on the way leading to the place .

of congregation and had also installed Loudspeaker upon which he was playing Cassettes
fomenting hatred. On such information the complainant is alleged to have arrived at the place of
incident where he saw the Loudspeaker available and were running at high pitch voice whereby
accused constable Raza Muhammad Shah was dubbing the congregation of Ahl-e-Sunnat as
belonging to Yazeed. It is further alleged in the F. I. R. that along with accused Raza
Muhammad 30/40 persons were also present who under the leadership of him, were raising
slogans. The complainant tried to stop the accused Mujahid Shah from raising slogans and told
him to remove the speed breaker but accused Raza Muhammad Shah kept calling the
congregation of Ahl-e-Sunnat as belonging to Yazeed and continuously voiced out hatred against
them. It is further alleged that complainant could not arrest the accused Raza Muhammad Shah
at the spot fearing a religious dispute there.

Per learned counsel the police was acting upon a secret information in advance but no private
person was associated by them to witness the alleged incident. He also argued that the present
case is based upon only on the statements of police officials without any independent
corroboration, as such the case against the accused calls for further enquiry. 4. While rebutting
him, the learned State Counsel opposed the grant of bail to the applicant/accused by arguing that
his name is mentioned in the F. I. R. However, he could not controvert the counsel for applicant
regarding his arguments over the applicability of section 295-A, P. P. C. in the present case in
terms of section 196, Cr. P. C.

6. The tentative appraisal of evidence procured by the prosecution against the applicant/accused
shows the applicant/ accused has been booked for the offences under sections 295-A, 296, 298,
341, P. P. C.

read with section 9 ATA 1997 & 3 WPR. C. Excepting section 295-A, P. P. C. , the punishment
provided for remaining offences is less than 07 years, by virtue of which the offence alleged
against the applicant/accused does not fall within Prohibitory Clause of 497(1), Cr. P. C.

As far the applicability of section 295-A, P. P. C. is concerned, it is yet to be established against

the accused during the trial, as prima facie it appears that requirement of section 196, Cr. P. C.
was not fulfilled by the complainant before registration of the case.
7. The learned counsel appearing for the State, during his arguments conceded to the above
proposition of law and stated that so far no sanction as envisaged under section 196, Cr. P. C.
has been obtained for the trial of present case.

The prosecution case also shows that though the Police had an advance information about the
incident, but no efforts, on the part of complainant, appear to have been made to procure the
attendance of private persons to witness the proceeding.

JUDGMENT:
Under these circumstances we are of the view that prima facie the applicant/ accused has been
able to make out his case for grant of bail, which accordingly is granted to him subject to his
furnishing a solvent surety in the sum of Rs.50,000 and P.R. Bond of like amount to the
satisfaction of the trial Court.
 
 Needless to mention that above observations are tentative in nature. Trial Court shall not be
influenced by such observations while deciding the case on merits.
 
The bail application in hand stands disposed of in above terms.
 
MWA/R-20/Sindh Bail granted.

S-297 [Trespassing on burial places, etc.]

Case Citation:
P L D 2022 High Court (AJ&K) 18

PARTIES:
SAKINA---Petitioners
 Versus

The STATE and through Advocate General AJ&K, Muzaffarabad another---

Respondents

JUDGES:
Before Sadaqat Hussain Raja, C.J

CASE BACKGROUND ( FACTS)

The captioned revision petition has been preferred against the impugned order of District Court
of Criminal Jurisdiction Sudhnoti dated 27. 09. 2021, whereby bail, sought on statutory ground
of delay in conclusion of trial, was declined to petitioner-accused. The petitioner-accused, along
with co-accused-persons, is facing trial for the murder of Imran Khan, deceased, before District
Court of Criminal Jurisdiction Sudhnoti.

Although FIR was lodged against some unknown persons, however, during investigation it was
found that Sakina, petitioner-accused along with other co-accused-persons planned to commit
murder of Imran Khan and she played role for bringing Imran Khan at a deserted place, where he
was done to death and his dead body was burnt. 3. Petitioner-accused, after completion of two
years of trial, moved an application for bail on ground of statutory delay in trial before District
Court of Criminal Jurisdiction Sudhnoti/Palandri on 13. 09. 2021, which was dismissed vide
impugned order dated 27. 09. 2021; hence, the instant revision petition.
4. Sardar Muhammad Ejaz Khan, the learned Counsel for the petitioner-accused vehemently
argued that his client is behind the bars since 25. 07. 2019 and she being a woman is entitled to
be released on bail in the light of amendment made in section 497(1),Cr. P. C, which postulates
that in case of a woman being accused of an offence punishable with death, whose trial has not
been concluded within a period of one year, is entitled to be released on bail. The learned
Counsel stressed on the point that the instant case is a blind murder and petitioner is not
nominated in the FIR but the Court below while declining bail has astonishingly declared her as
hardened, desperate and dangerous criminal whereas she is neither previously convicted nor she
played an extraordinary role in the incident rather during investigation she has been alleged to
abet the offence of murder.
5. Conversely, Sardar Nisar Ahmad, the learned Counsel for the complainant-respondent No. 2,
vigorously opposed arguments of the learned Counsel for petitioner-accused and submitted that
the bail application has been correctly dismissed by the learned trial Court on statutory ground
by declaring the petitioner as hardened, desperate and dangerous criminal because she, as per
planning, brought the deceased from his home to a deserted place at late hours of night of 17th
July, 2019, where he was brutally done to death by the accused-persons in a pre-planned manner
and his dead body was burnt.
8. The petitioner-accused, along with co-accused-persons (not before me), is facing trial for the
murder of Imran Khan, deceased, before District Court of Criminal Jurisdiction
Sudhnoti/Palandri in offences under sections 302, 34, 297, A. P. C. and 15(2)AA. Although FIR
was lodged against some unknown persons, however, during investigation it was found that
Sakina, petitioner-accused along with other co-accused-persons planned to commit murder of
Imran Khan and she played an active role for bringing Imran Khan at a deserted place, where he
was done to death and his dead body was burnt.

JUDGMENT:
As far as the authorities, 1998 SCR 146 and 2015 PCr.LJ (SC AJ&K) 134, cited by the learned
Counsel for petitioner-accused are concerned, in these cases accused were not declared hardened,
desperate or dangerous criminals, whereas in the case in hand, on the basis of brutal manner of
occurrence, petitioner-accused has been declared hardened, desperate and dangerous criminal;
therefore, the aforesaid authorities are distinguishable from the facts of present case.

13. Consequently, the instant revision petition stands dismissed; however, the trial Court is
directed to expedite the proceedings and conclude the trial as soon as possible.

SA/17/HC(AJ&K) Bail declined.
 S-292 [Sale, etc., of obscene books, etc.]

Case Citation:
2020 Y L R Note 42 [Lahore (Multan Bench)]

PARTIES:

MUDASSIR MANZOOR and another---Appellants

Versus

The STATE and another---Respondents

JUDGES:
Before Asjad Javaid Ghural, J

CASE BACKGROUND ( FACTS)

Through this criminal appeal under Section 410, Cr. P. C. , appellant Mudassar Manzoor has
challenged the vires of judgment dated 16. 11. 2017 passed by the learned Additional Sessions
Judge, Layyah in case FIR No. 77 dated 08. 03. 2015, in respect of offences under Sections 452,
458, 376(ii), 292 and 392, P. P. C. , registered at Police Station, Choubara, District Layyah
whereby he was convicted and sentenced as under:-

2. Complainant Mst. Shakila Ashraf has preferred Criminal Appeal No. 1164 of 2017 against
the acquittal of respondents Nos. 1 and 2 and also Criminal Revision No.
484 of 2017 seeking enhancement of sentence of the respondent No. 2, which will be decided
through this common judgment. In the intervening night of 04/05. 03. 2015 at about 01:00 a.
m. , Mubashir Manzoor, Mudassir Manzoor (appellant) and Adnan, who were notorious
vagabond and residents of same village, trespassed into her house, awakened the complainant on
gun point, took her to another room, torn her cloths, committed rape with her turn-by-turn,
prepared the video, tortured and extended her threats to upload the same on internet. He
identified his handwriting and signatures on different documents relating to the steps taken
during initial investigation as well as arrest of co-accused Adnan and Mubashir.

Ilyas Ahmed, SI (PW-9) conducted investigation of the case, made effort to arrest the appellant
but in vain. He recorded the statements of witnesses under Section 161, Cr. P. C.

and got prepared report under Section 173, Cr. P. C. 7.

At the commencement of the trial, learned trial Court had framed a charge against the appellant
and his co-accused Adnan and Mubashir Manzoor to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed
to be tried. The appellant and his co-accused, in their statement recorded under Section 342, Cr.
P. C . , had denied and controverted all the allegations of fact levelled against them. 9. Learned
trial Court, upon conclusion of the trial, proceeded to acquit co-accused Mubashir Manzoor and
Adnan whereas, convicted and sentenced the appellant, as stated above vide judgment impugned.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is quite innocent and had falsely
been implicated in the alleged occurrence; that there was delay of three days in lodging the crime
report showing the real possibility of consultation, deliberation and fabrication; that all the three
accused were assigned specific role of gang rape but two of them, have already been acquitted of
the charge while disbelieving the same set of witnesses; that the testimony of Muhammad Sharif
(PW -7) has already been discarded by the trial Court;

that the mode and manner of the occurrence of rape by three accused turn-by-turn and preparing
its movie in the same compound where four children of the victim were also sleeping does not
appeal to reason; that the medical evidence does not support the ocular account; that the report of
DNA analysis regarding vaginal swabs of the victim has been received with negative result; that
the cloth and other articles were sent to the office of Punjab Forensic Science Agency on 10. 03.
2015 through Muhammad Sharif, constable (PW-1) but the said witness did not utter even a
single word in that regard before the learned trial Court; that the prosecution evidence to the
extent of preparing video clip of the occurrence, maltreating the victim and theft of ear rings has
already been disbelieved by the learned trial court; that the victim made material improvements
in her deposition before the learned trial court, which was duly confronted to her previous
statement; that previous enmity between the parties is admitted one, which was the sole reason to
falsely implicate the appellant and his brothers in this case. Conversely, learned Deputy District
Public Prosecutor appearing for the State assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant has
vehemently contended that the victim as well as Muhammad Sharif and Nazar Hussain had well
identified the appellant and his companions at the time of occurrence; that she had specifically
levelled the allegation of gang rape against the appellant and his co-accused in her residential
room.

JUDGMENT:
Before parting with this judgment, I have observed that Muhammad Sharif (PW-7) made false
statement before the learned trial court on oath against the appellant in an offence of moral
turpitude entailing the capital punishment. He did not figure in the crime report, which was
registered with the delay of four days and he volunteered at some subsequent stage posing
himself as a witness of seeing the appellant and his co-accused when they were coming out of his
brother's house. He made an abortive attempt to provide corroboration to the complainant lady
and thereby ostensibly committed the offence of perjury. The practice of giving false statement
has become fashion and habit of our society, which has been discouraged by august Supreme
Court of Pakistan in a recent esteemed judgment in a case reported as "PLD 2019 Supreme Court
527" with a clear-cut observation to curb such practice in future. So, on the same analogy the
matter is referred to the learned District and Sessions Judge, Layyah with the direction to initiate
proceedings against Muhammad Sharif (PW-7) under Section 194, P.P.C. in accordance with
law.

JK/M-177/L Appeal accepted.