Defiling of holy Quran offence against state: Only govts can file complaint: LHC
By Our Correspondent
LAHORE, Oct 30: The Lahore High Court has held that the act of defiling the holy Quran is not an offence against an individual but against the state and complaints against such an act of blasphemy can be lodged with police only with the permission of the federal and provincial governments or an authorised officer.
Justice Fazle Miran Chauhan observed in his judgment that defiling of holy scriptures was an offence against the state and only the federal and provincial governments could become complainants. Similarly, the governments or their authorised officers were only competent to grant permission for the registration of cases under the mischief of section 295-A of PPC(defiling of the holy Quran). No individual was authorised to lodge such a complaint with the police, he observed.
The court allowed Mohammad Yousuf, a resident of village Partanwala, district Sialkot, to bail after he remained in jail since a case was registered against him on May 30 this year. The SHO, on the receipt of a complaint from a prayer leader of the village, had himself registered a case under section 295-A of the PPC alleging the accused of offering such remarks against the holy Quran which he though were blasphemous.
A local magistrate rejected the bail of Yousuf who then moved the LHC for bail which was allowed was granted on the bond of Rs 50,000.
Justice Chauhan said in his decision that a bare reading of section 295-A PPC with section 196 of the CrPC demonstrated that the offence under section 295-A of the PPC was not an offence against an individual but the state. As such, the legal procedure required in such cases was that courts should take cognizance of such issue when the federal or the provincial governments or an officer authorised by them gave permission to the police to register cases under section 295-C of the PPC.
The petitioner’s counsel, advocate Rabiyya Bajwa, submitted that the accused had a dispute with the complainant’s party over the property of an imambargah in the village and the two had already initiated litigation against each other. As such, the case was not purely criminal in nature but involved personal enmity. She submitted that the SHO registered the case as complainant nine days after he had received the complaint.
She also submitted that the decision of the magistrate of rejecting the bail application of the accused was based on the ground that his release would endanger peace in the area. She stated that maintenance of peace and tranquility was the responsibility of the government and no one could be detained for this reason because this would be in contravention of the constitutional guarantees to personal freedom and other fundamental rights.
The court declared the magistrate’s decision as unlawful with the observation that proceedings in the subordinate court missed important legal pre-requisites and were, thus, illegal.
