This is 2nd post arrest bail petition filed by the petitioner before this Court. The earlier one on the subject bearing Crl. Misc. No,' 104B/2012 was disposed of vide order dated 03.02.2012 with the direction to the learned trial Court to conclude the trial within three months.
2. By means of instant petition, Khurram Masih/petitioner has sought for his post-arrest bail in case FIR No, 1211, dated 05.12.2011, offence under Section 295-B, PPC, registered at Police Station Shandra Town, Lahore, on the complaint of Zulfiqar Ali son of Sajjad Hussain, Complainant/Respondent No, 2.
3. Prosecution story, in brief, as per contents of the FIR is that on 05.12.2011, the petitioner disgraced the pages holy Quran; thereby putting on fire its verses and thereafter while locking his house fled away from the scene of the occurrence.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner while opening his arguments submits that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been involved in the instant case against the actual facts and circumstances. Learned counsel vehemently contends that as a matter of fact the petitioner was tenant of the house in the ownership of the complainant and dispute arose qua payment over rent amount and the complainant with mala fide intention in connivance with the local police, lodged the false case. Adds that the story contained in the crime report is based upon hearsay and even the complainant had not witnessed the occurrence. Learned counsel further submits that the story contained in the crime report that after disgracing the holy papers, the complainant managed to flee away in presence of so many persons after locking his house and no one could apprehend him also seems to be improbable. Learned counsel further submits that earlier petition of the petitioner bearing Crl. Misc. No, 104-B/2012 was disposed of vide order dated 03.02.2012 with direction to the learned trial Court to conclude the trial within three months and despite the fact that more than eight months have elapsed, however, there is no plausible progress in trial. In these circumstances, learned counsel for the petitioner urges the petitioner is entitled to the relief sought for.
5. On the other hand learned Deputy Prosecutor General assisted by learned counsel for the complainant forcefully opposes the contentions raised by learned counsel for the petitioner with the averments that the petitioner is nominated in the FIR, who is involved in a heinous crime for which maximum punishment provided under the statute is life imprisonment and as due to act of the petitioner unrest among the general public spread and the people were infuriated, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to the relief sought for.
6. Arguments advanced pro and contra have been heard. I have also gone through the record available on file.
7. Nevertheless name of the petitioner figures in the crime report, however, I am afraid this Court has to see from the facts and circumstances whether case of the petitioner to the extent of grant of bail is made out or not. Perusal of record reveals that contents of the crime report are based upon hearsay and the complainant himself had not witnessed the alleged occurrence. On the last date of hearing i,e, 15.10.2012, Maqbool Ahmed, S.I. who had investigated the case was summoned, who on Court's query about the occurrence has given evasive answer. From the statement of the Investigating Officer it seems that possibility cannot be ruled out that the instant case was lodged by the complainant due to dispute over payment of rent amount with the petitioner. Moreover, this Court had also directed learned counsel for the complainant to verify the genuineness of the occurrence, who, during the course of arguments frankly conceded that the story contained in the crime report is fabricated. It is also worth mentioning that provisions of Section 295-B, PPC, clearly depict that the prosecution has to establish that the accused persons had committed the act willfully, however, in the instant case the willful act could not be established and prima facie it reveals that due to dispute over payment of rent amount the complainant indulged the petitioner in the unholy act.
8. Fact also remains that earlier while disposing of Crl Misc. No, 104-B/2012, vide order dated 03.02.2012 this Court had directed the learned trial Court to conclude the trial proceedings within three months but despite elapse of more than eight months there is no plausible progress in trial.
Needless to mention that liberty of a person is the constitutional/guaranteed right and one cannot be kept behind the bars for an indefinite period without trial.
9. For the foregoing facts and circumstances, without commenting upon the plausibility of the prosecution story this Court is persuaded to believe, that sufficient grounds exist to admit the petitioner to post-arrest bail. Resultantly, the instant petition is accepted as a consequence whereof Khurram Masih/petitioner is admitted to bail after arrest subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs,1,00,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.