' MUHAMMAD FARRUKH MAHMUD, J.---Abdul Latif, Yaqoob, Ishaq and Shafi have sought post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No,176 registered at Police Station Hasilpur on 17-6-2005 for offences under sections 295-C/365/342/148/149, P.P.C. After receipt of M.L.Rs,, offences under section 337-L(ii), P.P.C.
Was added. On 9-7-2005, offence under section 295-B, P.P.C. Was added, while on 3-10-2005 (during the pendency of this application), on the receipt of telephone call from SP Office, The Investigating Officer added offence under section 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997.
2. According to F.I.R., the complainant was spokesman of Majlis-i-Tahaffiza-i-Khatama-i- Naboowat. 15/16 houses belonging to Ahmadia sect existed in Chak No,192/M within territorial jurisdiction of Police Station Sadar Hasilpur. 5/6 years prior to the occurrence, Ahmadies started building their place of worship which resembled in design with a mosque. The complainant along with other asked Ahmadies to stop construction. After negotiations, Ahmadies closed the side doors of their place of worship and also stopped to construct minarets in the year 1999. A month prior to occurrence, the complainant came to know that the main gate of the place of worship had been opened. He along with others talked to Abdul Latif, Yaqoob, Seghal, Ishaq and Shafi Muhammad, who belonged to Ahmadia sect. They stated that the door was damaged due to the rains and that they would close the door again. On the fateful day, during Jumma prayer, the complainant was informed that the door had not been closed. Thus, he along with Master Abdul Qayyum and others went to Chak No,192/M at 3-00 p.m. Yaqoob, Sehgal, Ishaq, Abdul Latif and Shafi Ahmad were summoned in the Chowk, while negotiations regarding closure of the main gate were, in progress, Sana Ullah, Nasir Ahmad, Ishaq, Younus, Sultan, Javed Ahmad, Mushtaq Ahmad, Irshad Ahmad, Nasara Ullah armed with Sota, Muhammad Nawaz armed with Sota and Tariq armed with Sota reached the spot. They started' abusing the complainant and also started reciting from the Holy Quran. However, allegedly their interpretation of the holy book was against the faith of Muslim. It was further stated that they used derogatory language against Sallallah-o-Alaikh- iWasallam. The complainant party admonished them, whereafter the situation worsened and all the accused started beating the complainant and Master Muhammad Qayyum with fist and kicks.
Both of them were taken in the courtyard of place of worship where they were subjected to torture.
According to F.I.R., on the intervention of Saif-ur-Rehman, Habib-urRehman and Liaqat Ali Patwari, the complainant and Master Qayyum were released after duration of 3/4 hours. After registration of case, supplementary statements of complainant and other P.Ws. Were recorded on 27-8-2005.
In the Supplementary statements, specific allegation of misinterpretation of Qur'an was levelled against Yaqoob, Shafi and Tariq, while specific allegation of using derogatory language towards Sallallah-oAlaih-i-Wa-Sallam was levelled against Younus and Tariq accused.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners have argued that the petitioners have been roped in a false case due to sectarian differences and that no specific allegation was levelled against the petitioners in the F.I.R. It is further argued that offence under section 365, P.P.C. Is not made out, a-, according to F.I.R. Itself, the detenus were taken to the compound to place of worship within the view of witnesses and that the offence under section 337-L(ii)/148/149, P.P.C. Do not attract prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. Learned A.A.-G. Has frankly conceded and argued that only general allegation was levelled against the petitioners in the F.I.R. And that according to prosecution, it could not be said with authenticity that the supplementary statements recorded after registration of the case were trustworthy and that in any case there was no allegation against the petitioners that they used any derogatory language towards Sallallah-o-Alaih-iWasallam.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant have vehemently opposed this application and have argued that specific allegation has been levelled against Yaqoob and Shafi in the supplementary statements recorded on 23-6-2005 of desecration of the holy book. The learned counsel have further argued that misinterpretation of the wholy word "Ahmad" used in the verse constituted an offence under section 295-C, P.P.C. The learned counsel have further argued that offences under sections 295-C and 295-B, P.P.C., both, attract the mischief of prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. Thus, the petitioners did not deserve the concession of bail.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the relevant record of the case.
5. Undeniably, according to F.I.R., while negotiations were on between the complainant party and Yaqoob, Sehgal, Ishaq, Abdul Latif and Shafi Muhammad accused, rest of the accused intervened and they started misinterpreting they holy book and used derogatory language vis-a-vis Sallalah- o-Alaih-i-Wasallam. It is also in F.I.R. That complainant and Master Qayyum were slapped and given blows with fist and kicks. None of the accused gave any sota blow to them. It is also noteworthy that according to F.I.R., thirteen persons caused injuries to the complainant and Master Qayyum while according to MLR, complainant Muhammad Ishaq suffered five injuries in total and one of the same was a complaint of pain and none of the injuries was serious in nature. As far as Master Qayyum is concerned, he was never examined by a medical officer. As already noted above, specific allegation against Yaqoob and Shafi, petitioners, were levelled in supplementary statements recorded after ten days of the occurrence. The Investigating Officer himself, according to report dated 28-9-2005, was not sure about the truthfulness of the supplementary statement of the complainant. The worth of the supplementary statement of the complainant and other P.Ws.
Would be determined the learned trial Court after recording of evidence. It is ironical that on 22-9- 2005 during the pendency of this petition, on the telephonic advice of D.P.O., offence under section 7 of the A.T.A., 1997, was added on the basis of same available evidence.
' Admittedly, existed between the complainant party and the accused over the construction of place of worship since, 1999. In the above noted circumstances, I am of the opinion that the allegations against the petitioners need further probe and inquiry within the purview of subsection
(2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. Thus, I am inclined to admit the petitioners to bail subject to their furnishing bail bonds in the sum of rupees fifty thousand each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Conrt.