' The allegation against the petitioner, Malik Muhammad Ishaq is that he along with Maulana Sohail Abbas Naqvi, Maulana Moavia Azam Tariq, Mufti Saeed Arshad Alhussaini and Maulana Manzoor Ahmad Akkasha, addressed a gathering of 900/1000 persons at Jamia Masjid Qadeem Firdaus, Darya Khan at 9-15 p.m. On 8-2-2013 and delivered incendiary speeches by attacking the Shia- sect, recited poetry, equally inflammatory, induced the charged crowd to chant offensive slogans against the Shiites and provoked them to launch a crusade against them, if needed; Malik Muhammad Ishaq (petitioner), however, used language of lesser gravity and he mainly defended the nobility and piety of the Companions (May Almighty be pleased with them) of the Holy Prophet Muhammad (Peace Be Upon Him).
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely involved in this case on the instigation of some vested quarters and allegation against him is patently false; the alleged occurrence took place on 8-2-2013 and section 9 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 has been unlawfully added to the facts of this case with a mala fide intention on 24-10-2013; the contents of the F.I.R. Do not disclose commission of any cognizable offence as attribution made to the petitioner disclosed nothing but his personal faith and belief, which everyone under the law and the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973 may have to follow; lastly submits that the petitioner was taken into custody in this case on 10-6-2013 and he has been languishing in jail since then only for the sin of being `a follower of the faith and sect opposite to the one, as mentioned in the F.I.R.
3. Learned Deputy Prosecutor-General Punjab on the other hand opposes with the contention that the petitioner is a. Constant threat to the public safety, public peace and tranquillity and his activities are grossly prejudicial to the religious harmony, coherence and brotherhood amongst different sects; the speech made by the petitioner thrilled the audience and he motivated them to show their furious sentiments against the Shra -sect; the stir created by the petitioner through his inflammatory speech put the lives of the opposite sect at peril and sectarian fever ran high due to reckless conduct of the accused; the petitioner has a long history of involvement in such-like cases and he does not look inclined to shed his irresponsible behaviour. He, however, admits that section 9 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 has been added to the list of offences, later on.
4. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is observed that the co- speakers of the petitioner delivered incendiary speeches as if they had waged a war against the Shi'ites. Though, speech allegedly made by the petitioner was also of provocative character, yet words used by him as compared to the others, might have relatively fallen with lesser severity, on the ears of the listeners. In terms of gravity and intensity, his speech may easily be segregated from the other speeches made, as it contained\an element of comparison between Shia and Sunni schools of thought. The comments made and sentiments shown by the petitioner, however, cannot be held praiseworthy, as a rationale and intellect-filled-dialogue may turn much more effective and leave much deeper impression, in contrast to an effervescent outburst of sentiments.
The Holy Prophet (Peace Be Upon Him) and His pious Companions (May Almighty be pleased with them) won the hearts of their arch rivals and implacable enemies by their patience and unprecedented polity and character. The masses have to recapitulate the forgotten lesson, so as to keep the head aloft amongst the comity of nations and paint a peace-loving, enduring and tolerant society.
5. The petitioner was arrested in this case on 10-6-2013, but it does not mean that he, earlier to it, roamed about freely, like a common man without any restrictions on him, as he stood detained under various preventive-detention-orders, since 22-5-2013 and he, despite having been granted bail in various cases, registered under section 16 of Pakistan Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance 1960 and sections 188, 295-A P.P.C. Etc., by different courts of law, he had not been released from the prison. A close scrutiny of the contents of the F.I.R. Would reveal that the petitioner hardly condemned or abused or verbally attacked the A Shia sect rather he spoke in praise or the pious Companions (May Almighty be pleased with them) of the Holy Prophet Muhammad (Peace Be Upon Him) by referring to various Verses from the Glorious Qur'an with the pledge that their dignity, nobility and eminence would be defended, the way it ought to be. One may follow any school of thought as regards the faith and one may keep allegiance with any sect but it has to be remembered that survival as a nation only lies in sectarian harmony, inter-faith- coherence and on the principles of 'live and let live'. If law-enforcing agencies fear the activities of the petitioner, then, they should critically look at their own line of action and devise a method, so that his "spell-binding" voice and tone may be used for a better purpose, in the interest of the masses. To drive and push him to jail repeatedly under various pretexts and orders may not be an absolute answer to the pain, being felt in their neck by the law-enforcing agencies. No one can be left to rot in jail for an indefinite period of time to satisfy the grudge, whimsical or otherwise, of anyone. Justice cannot be allowed to be brutalized to curtail life and liberty of an individual, who is found a hard nut to crack by the police. Without going further into the niceties of the speech, allegedly made by the accused-petitioner, we may observe that period of his incarceration, if extended further, would serve no useful purpose.
5. For the discussion supra, this petition is allowed and the -petitioner is admitted to post-arrest bail subject to furnishing bail bonds in the sum of s.2,00,000 (two lacs) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.