ZUBAIR SAEED SABRI/ SAIN ZUBAIR SHAH vs State Ss — 2024 PLD 681 SUPREME-COURT

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

ZUBAIR SAEED SABRI/ SAIN ZUBAIR SHAH VS State 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 295-C 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 becomes inconsequential as his life has already been destroyed---In this case the charge was also amended to sections 295-a and 298-B of the P.P.C.---Petitioner has remained incarcerated for over seven months but his trial is nowhere near conclusion---all the said factors entitled the petitioner to bail---Petition was converted into appeal and allowed, and petitioner was admitted to bail.

ZUBAIR SAEED SABRI/ SAIN ZUBAIR SHAH vs State Ss — 2024 PLD 681 SUPREME-COURT

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2024 PLD