A two-judge bench of apex court, headed by Justice Dost Muhammad Khan, issued a two-page order wherein it is stated that Murawat Hussain “was booked under section 298-A for allegedly expressing words against the spouse of the last Messenger of Allah [PBUH], however, the information conveyed to the police by the private complainant in this regard was incomplete and through supplementary statement the deficiency [was fulfilled]".
Lawmakers call for 'review' of blasphemy law
Section 298-A punishes people for using derogatory language against the wives or other family of Prophet Muhammad (Pbuh), the four righteously-guided caliphs, or the other companions of the prophet (PBUH). The penalties can be as high as a three-year prison sentence and a fine.
Zafar Abbas Naqvi, counsel for the convict, raised questions before the SC regarding why reasons were not given at the time when the FIR was originally lodged and what prompted the complainant to later add certain words to the complaint to bring the case in line with the requirements of an offence punishable under Section 298-A.
It was also stated that the petitioner is good Muslim and that there was no evidence he had made a departure from the tenets of Islam, “as evident from the record”, and what he allegedly stated was in good faith based on sayings of the prophet as quoted in ‘Sahih al-Bukhari’, therefore, the offence for which the petitioner was charged, was neither constituted nor established.
The bench granted leave to appeal to consider the legal and factual aspects of the case.
13-year-old boy killed as alleged blasphemy triggers violent protest in Balochistan
The counsel for the petitioner then contended that the sentence awarded is three years, out of which the convict has already served almost 11 months, and there is no likelihood of his appeal being taken up anytime soon. He requested that rather than leaving the petitioner to serve out his sentence waiting for his appeal hearing, the court may take notice of the new emerging situation to grant the petitioner interim bail.
The bench then accepted the plea while observing that the sentence of the convict, “on a prayer made at the bar by his counsel,” is suspended. He was granted bail against Rs100,000 with two reliable sureties to the satisfaction of the trial court or any magistrate on duty. “In case of the latter, after attestation, the surety bonds should be sent to the trial court to be placed on record,” the bench added.
COMMENTS
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ