Court dismisses post-arrest bails in blasphemy cases

Accused claim they were implicated in forged cases to 'humiliate, embarrass' them


Rana Yasif November 29, 2022

LAHORE:

A district and sessions court dismissed two separate pleas for post-arrest bails for two accused persons allegedly involved in committing blasphemy by using derogatory language against the caliphs (Khulafa-e-Rashdeen).

After hearing detailed arguments, judges presiding over the case dismissed the bail pleas as the counsels for the accused persons "failed to establish their innocence".

The complainants' counsel Advocate Ghulam Mustafa Chaudhary implored the court that there is adequate material to establish the guilt of the accused persons.

He claimed that there is evidence wherein the accused persons allegedly committed blasphemy by using derogatory language against Khulafa-e-Rashdeen.

However, the counsels for the accused persons argued that they had nothing to do with these cases, adding that they have been implicated in forged cases merely to humiliate and embarrass them.

Read LHC summons officials over plea about Quran translation

The advocates requested the court to grant post-arrest bail pleas of those accused, claiming that "the story woven in the FIRs is concocted and has no nexus with the reality".

Accused Qamar shared some objectionable voice messages in a WhatsApp group in which he allegedly used derogatory language against Khulafa-e-Rashdeen.

Complainant Muhammad Ajmal registered an FIR against Qamar at the Akbari Gate police station under sections 298-A and 295-A of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC).

Similarly, the second accused Ziagam was operating a Facebook account where he purportedly posted blasphemous material against Khulafa-e-Rashdeen.

Complainant Majid registered an FIR against Ziagam with the Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) cybercrime cell under sections 11 of PECA 2016, 295-A and 298-A of PPC.

COMMENTS

Replying to X

Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.

For more information, please see our Comments FAQ

Most Read