' A case under sections 295-B and 298-C, P.P.C. Was registered on 25-5-1994 at Police Station Ganda Singh Wala, District Kasur, at the instance of one Allah Ditta Mujahid, claiming to be General Secretary of an Organization, called "Tahaffaz-e-Khatam-e-Nabuwat", Kasur. On receiving an information that Qadianis were preaching their religion and misleading Muslims in village Khar Peerr, the complainant, alongwith Maulana Mohy-ud-Din Saifi and other members of the aforesaid Organization, claims to have paid a visit to the village on 15-12-1993, and come across the place of worship of the Qadianis, with Kalima Tayyaba and other Quranic verses inscribed on the walls of the building. The complainant with his companions met Maqbool Aslam Ahmad and Ijaz Ahmad, respectively President and General Secretary of the Qadiani Jamaa't, who were asked to erase these inscriptions. Maqbool Ahmad, Ijaz Ahmad, Muhammad Aslam, etc. However, adopted a posture obstruction and gave a display of gangsterism. Maqbool Ahmad's role was considered to be insignificant and he was granted bail by Rana Zahid Mehmood, Additional Sessions Judge, Kasur, by an order passed on 4-7-1994. By the same order, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, refused the relief of bail to Ijaz Ahmad accused. By a separate order made on 23-6-1994, the said learned Additional Sessions Judge had cancelled the bail earlier allowed to Muhammad Aslam accused by Sardar Mumtaz Afzal, Senior Civil Judge/Magistrate Section 30, Kasur. Muhammad Aslam and Ijaz Ahmad have submitted separate applications for admittance of bail; and the same would be disposed of by this single order.
2. I have given conscious consideration to the nature of the allegations against the accused persons and the stand point of the complainant. It is stated in the F.I.R. That mosque like model of the place, of worship of the Qadianis tends to deceive the general body of the Muslims. This statement, however, seems to have little substance, the reason being that Qadianis seldom conceal the identity of their worship place, and it is publicly known to all those around that a particular place is centre of worship of the Qadianis and not that of the Muslims, called a mosque in its familiar term. No question of the Muslims falling prey to any confusion about identity of such a building arises, in my considered opinion.
3. If people other than Muslims hold the Holy Book, Qur'an, and its text, in high esteem, relish its recitation, derive spiritual enlightenment and guidance from the Qura'nic Verses, and with that end in view they inscribe or exhibit the same at their place of worship. I do not think that such an act would tantamount to description or derogation of Allah's Book, or may be treated as unlawful or wrongful use of the Qura'nic Verses. Learned counsel for the accused, with all the vehemence at his command, states that the Qadianis too have the fullest possible respect for the Qura'n and consider the same to be a Divine Book, which Allah Almighty had revealed to the choicest of his Prophets, Muhammad (peace be upon him). It is, therefore, doubtful if ingredients of section 295-B, P.P.C. Are available and the offence punishable with life imprisonment is indeed attracted.
4. It is also to be borne in mind that if at the sight of the "objectionable" inscriptions, feelings of the Muslims, as was maintained by the complainant, were likely to be injured, the complainant and his comrades were not supposed to have kept silent for such a long time. They had visited the village on 15-12-1993, and had reported the matter to the police with an inordinate delay of about 5-1/2 months. It cannot, therefore, be assumed that the "spectacle" had in actual practice outraged the Muslims or hurt their religious feelings.
5. In so far as the other offence under section 298-C, P.P.C. Is concerned, the maximum punishment provided therefor, is 3 years, besides fine. The learned lower Court has relied on Nasir Ahmad v. The State 1992 PCr.LJ 2351 (Lahore), which judgment of this Court was set aside by the Supreme Court of Pakistan, vide authority reported as 1993 SCM R 153.
6. The accused were arrested on 23-6-1994, and obviously no recovery is to be made from them, and they are not required further for the purpose of investigation. It is well-settled that an accused is not to be detained in anticipation of his conviction and as a measure of punishment, particularly when the trial is not fore-seeable . The accused persons would certainly get their due, if found guilty in trial. It is not known as to when will the trial commence and conclude, as the case is of recent past. I do not think that the accused are disentitled to the concession of bail. They shall, therefore, be enlarged, on each one of them furnishing a bail bond in the amount of Rs,20,000 with one surety each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the A.C./Duty Magistrate, Kasur, Copy Dasti.
' For reasons recorded in order of even date, passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No,3107/B of 1993, this petition is accepted. The petitioner shall be enlarged on his furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs,20,000, with one surety in the like amount, to the satisfaction of A.C./Duty Magistrate, Kasur. Copy Dasti.