Through this consolidated order we intend to dispose off:
(i) Crl. Misc. No.I7114-B/2014 Haris Bashir and 3 others v. The State and another
(ii) Crl. Misc. No. 554-B/2015 Muhammad Hanif v. The State and another
(iii) Crl. Misc. No.610-B/2015 Nisar Ahmed v. The State and another
(iv) Crl. Misc. No. 928-B/20I5 Tajammal Hussain v. The State and another
(v) Crl. Misc. No. 5592-B/2015 Abdul Latif v. The State and another as all the petitions are arising out a one and the same FIR.
2. By means of their respective petitions the petitioners have sought for their post-arrest bail in case FIR No.475/2014, dated 04.11.2014, offence under sections 302, 436, 353, 201, 186, 148, P.P.C., read with section 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, registered with Police Station Kot Radha Kishan, District Kasur.
3. The horrible tragedy befell on a cold morning of 4th November, 2014 when as per prosecution version at 7:30 a.m. Muhammad Ali, S.I. Along with other police officials was present at Chak No.65, Adda Mana Road, where he received an information that a mob consisting 500/600 infuriated persons had gathered at the Brick Kiln owned by Yousaf Gujjar. In the presence of the complainant and other, the accused persons decomposed the roof of the office of Brick Kiln and from there took out two persons belonging to the Christian Community namely (1) Sajjad Masih son of Nazir Masih and (2) Mst. Saima alias Shameem wife of Sajjad Masih. The police party tried to intercept, however, (1) Yousaf Gujjar, (2) Munshi Shakeel, (3) Munshi Afzal, (4) Haji Akram Pappu, (5) Mehndi Shah, (6) Ramzan Driver, (7) Akram son of Nawaz Jatt along with 8/10 other persons while catching hold them from hair dragged and put them on fire and soon their bodies were burnt to ashes.
According to contents of the crime report, Hans Bashir, Waqas Bashir, Usman Sandhu and Arsalan Attique, Muhammad Hanif, Nisar Ahmed Tajammal Hussain and Abdul Latif, petitioners were participants of the mob and they by making announcements on loudspeaker in the mosques arranged gathering and infuriated the other participants.
4. The petitioners have been represented by their independent counsel, however, with the consensus of all the learned counsel, Rai Bashir Ahmed, Advocate has opted to argue the case at length. Learned counsel contends that in fact the petitioners are innocent and have falsely been involved in the instant case against the actual facts and circumstances. Further contends that the prosecution has aggravated the story and brought in so many persons, whereas, the crime report clearly reflects that the occurrence had taken place in two phases. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioners before this Court have no direct nexus with the crime alleged, hence they cannot be dubbed as actual participants of the occurrence of phase-I. It is vehemently argued that though during the course of investigation the names of the petitioners have been placed in column No.3 of the report prepared under section 173, Cr.P.C. But at the most, accusation against the petitioners, is of raising slogans and instigating others, veracity of which would be resolved after recording of evidence. Learned counsel further submits that liberty of a person is a precious right protected under the Constitution, therefore, the petitioners are entitled to the relief sought for. Rest of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the remaining petitioners added a few sentences while advancing arguments at their own turn, however, while evaluating the whole contentions raised by all the learned counsel, the crux of the arguments is not more than what has been raised ,during the course of proceedings.
With reference to Muhammad Hanif (Crl. Misc. No.554-B/ 2015) and Tajammal Hussain (Crl. Misc.
No.928-B/2015)/petitioners, it is argued that they are not dwellers of the same area and as a matter of fact they were just passer by and after viewing a huge gathering, they stopped over there, however, their culpability qua the accusations cannot be surmised. It is further argued that during the course of investigation although recovery has been effected from Tajammal Hussain/petitioner yet the same is of no legal credence as the Joint Investigation Team has not ascribed any overt act towards them.
5. On the other hand, learned Deputy Prosecutor General assisted by learned counsel for the complainant/legal heirs of the deceased contends that it is a gruesome occurrence in which the shrieks of the couple were overheard in the entire country, which even otherwise is stigmatic for the mankind. It is further argued that one of the petitioners, Hans Bashir, was the actual person, who gathered over there and instigated the others. Even he was the person, who made a speech in the mosque and due to his instigation, not only a large number of public assembled there rather announcements were made in the mosques of near villages including Chak No.59, Chak No.60 and Village Rossa. As there was a festival in Ganj Shareef, which is at a distance of 10/12-KMs from the place of occurrence, hence in pursuance of the announcements, the participants of the festival approached there and subsequently a barbaric incident took place. The Head of the Joint Investigation Team/D.I.G, who is present in the Court, in response to the Court query, has stated that during the course of investigation conducted in pursuance of Orders of the august Supreme Court of Pakistan, the accused challaned in this case have been categorized in three categories.
However, D.I.G. Frankly concedes that except Muhammad Hanif and Tajammal Hussain/ petitioners, rest have been placed in Category-I as actual culprits, who actively instigated the public at large, which resulted into the instant carnage and the same speaks volume qua the atrocities shown by the participants of the mob towards the couple of Christian community. The Court has been further ,apprised that the couple was not only given severe beatings rather both the spouses were thrown into the oven of the brick kiln as a consequence they were burnt to ashes. Learned Law Officer contends that challan has already been submitted before the court of competent jurisdiction and direction has already been issued by august Supreme Court of Pakistan for expeditious trial.
6. We have heard the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the complainant, as well as, learned Deputy Prosecutor General and gone through the record available on file.
7. The occurrence, undoubtedly, is one of the worst examples of man's brutality, the human civilization ever experienced. The story narrated in the crime report and the result of investigation candidly reflects that it is a gruesome murder in which two persons (spouses) were set ablaze in the oven of brick kiln and they burnt to ashes. As the matter pertains to a mob participation, its evaluation cannot be done while dealing with ancillary matters like bail without minute examination of police file. However, the net conclusion of the investigation carried out by a 'Team' comprising senior police officers under the orders of apex Court clearly reveals that Haris Bashir, Waqas Bashir, Usman Sandhu, Arsalan Attique and Abdul Latif/petitioners actively participated in the pathetic episode. Haris Bashir/petitioner has been ascribed the key role of making speech to the lynch mob, instigating then and persuading them to accomplish the nefarious design. So much so the Joint Investigation Team headed by a senior Police Officer to the rank of Deputy Inspector General of Police, has concluded that had Haris Bashir not instigated the mob, the unfortunate and barbaric occurrence could have been everted. Hence, while making tentative assessment of the accusations brought forth on record coupled with the investigation carried out by the Joint Investigation Team, prima facie reasonable grounds exist regarding culpability of Haris Bashir, Waqas Bashir, Usman Sandhu, Arsalan Attique and Abdul Latif/petitioners in the instant case.
Therefore, we have been convinced to hold that to the extent of Haris Bashir, Waqas Bashir, Usman Sandhu and Arsalan Attique (Crl. Misc. No.17114-B/2014), Nisar Ahmed (Crl. Misc. No.610-B/2015), and Abdul Latif (Cr 1. Misc. No.5592-B/2015)/petitioners, no case for their enlargement on post-arrest bail is made out. Resultantly, their respective bail petitions are hereby dismissed.
8. As far as the case of Muhammad Hanif and Tajammal Hussain is concerned, Head of JIT has made a categorical statement before this Court that the prosecution case to then extent falls within category-III, hence possibility cannot be ruled out that as they were going to attend a funeral ceremony at Village Raiwind, they stopped over there being passerby. Moreover, the genuineness of the prosecution accusations to their extent shall be evaluated during the course of trial after recording the prosecution evidence. As far as recovery from Tajammal Hussain, petitioner is concerned; the same is of general pattern. This Court is conscious of the fact that, mere opinion of the police cannot be considered as a sole ground to hold an opinion but it is also an established principle of law that each criminal case has its own peculiar facts and circumstances. In such like cases where the occurrence has taken place in pursuance of mob violence, the investigation carried out by senior police officers has its own weight-age. While considering liberty of a person as a precious right as an abundant caution, we have been persuaded to hold that by detaining Muhammad Hanif and Tajammal Hussain/petitioners for an indefinite period would be against the canons recognized for dispensation of criminal justice. Resultantly, Crl. Misc. No.554-B/2015 filed by Muhammad Hanif and Crl. Misc. No.928-B/2015 filed by Tajammal Hussain/petitioners are accepted as a consequence whereof both the petitioners are admitted to post-arrest bail subject to their furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs 5,00,000/- each with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial court.
9. Before parting with the order we have observed that the august Supreme Court, while disposing of Constitution Petition No.94 of 2014, was pleased to direct the learned trial court to expedite the trial proceedings. Therefore, learned trial court is directed to adhere to the direction of the apex Court.
10. Moreover, it is also made clear that the findings made herein above are tentative in nature and are meant only for disposal of the instant us. These shall have no bar on any body's case at trial/other proceedings.