| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2024 SLG 5981 2024 SLD 5981 = 2024 PLD 681 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Criminal Petition for Leave to Appeal No. 1359 of 2023, decided on 14th February, 2024. (Against the order dated 10.11.2023 passed by the Islamabad High Court, Islamabad in Crl. Misc. No. 1627-B of 2023).
Present: Qazi Faez Isa, C.J., Muhammad Ali Mazhar and Musarrat Hilali, JJ
Muhammad Ilyas Siddiqui, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner. Raja M. Shafaqat Abbasi, D.A.G., Masood Bangash, SSP (Investigation) and Rukhsar Mehdi, SP (Investigation), Islamabad, Ch. M. Rafaqat Khokhar, Law Officer and Muhammad Hanif, Inspector/IO for the State. The Complainant in person.
Criminal Petition for Leave to Appeal No. 1359 of 2023, decided on 14th February, 2024. (Against the order dated 10.11.2023 passed by the Islamabad High Court, Islamabad in Crl. Misc. No. 1627-B of 2023).
Present: Qazi Faez Isa, C.J., Muhammad Ali Mazhar and Musarrat Hilali, JJ
Muhammad Ilyas Siddiqui, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner. Raja M. Shafaqat Abbasi, D.A.G., Masood Bangash, SSP (Investigation) and Rukhsar Mehdi, SP (Investigation), Islamabad, Ch. M. Rafaqat Khokhar, Law Officer and Muhammad Hanif, Inspector/IO for the State. The Complainant in person.
ZUBAIR SAEED SABRI/ SAIN ZUBAIR SHAH---Petitioner
VERSUS
The STATE through A.G., Islamabad and another---Respondents
Law: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)
Section: 156A,497
Law: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)
Section: 295C,295A,298B4(1),14(1),185(3)
Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973
Section:
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)-------Ss. 156-A & 497---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 295-A, 295-C & 298-B--Constitution of Pakistan, Arts. 4(1), 14(1) & 185(3)---Use of derogatory remarks, etc., in respect of Holy Prophet (pbuh)---Bail, grant of---Complainant alleged that he went to house of the petitioner (accused) where he allegedly saw a panaflex banner on which there were photographs allegedly of the Prophet and 12 Imams--Complainant then went to the police station and asked the police to accompany him, and they entered into the petitioner's house, removed the panaflex from the wall and took it into possession---Held, that the police were required to obtain a search warrant before entering the house of the petitioner, but did not do so--Without obtaining a search warrant the privacy of the petitioner's home was violated---Police, in entering the petitioner's house without a search warrant, violated the law, Islamic Injunctions and moral standards---Illegal entry of the police into the petitioner's house also brings into question anything recovered by the police from his house, which is another legal transgression---Since section 295C of the P.P.C. was mentioned as the only offence in the FIR, it was required to be investigated by an officer not below the rank of SP, as required by section 156-A of the Cr.P.C., but this was not done in the present case---Article 4(1) of the Constitution mandates that individuals must be treated in accordance with law, which includes section 156-A of the Cr.P.C---Section 295-C of the P.P.C., for which the petitioner was initially charged, is a capital offence---If the complainant's allegations were accepted in their entirety, even then this offence was not made out--It is, therefore, surprising that the police mentioned this offence in the FIR, which can only mean that they did so under pressure of the complainant or for ulterior purposes---Only other explanation could be their gross incompetence---In all offences against religion the particulars of the offence must be clearly stated--Merely levelling such a charge attracts great odium because even if the accused is subsequently found to be not guilty, it…