Blasphemy trial: Home Dept okays jail trial of Sawan Masih

Police, lawyers and judges sought jail trial for safety of accused.


Our Correspondent May 21, 2013
Following the alleged blasphemy incident, a mob torched two churches and some 150 houses belonging to Christian residents of Joseph Colony. PHOTO: REUTERS

LAHORE:


The Home Department has granted permission for Sawan Masih, a Christian accused of blasphemy, to be tried in jail.


Masih was accused of using derogatory language about Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) in March, following which a mob torched two churches and some 150 houses belonging to Christian residents of Joseph Colony.

Superintendent of Police (Headquarters) Hassan Mushtaq Sukhera had written to Additional District and Sessions Judge Chaudhry Ghulam Murtaza for the blasphemy case to be tried in jail, owing to the threat to Masih’s life.

Keeping in view the sensitivity of the case as this is a religious matter, and the security of the prisoner, special measures need to be adopted for his security and protection, SP Sukhera wrote in the letter.

He said Masih was being kept in judicial lockup in the Camp Jail and being brought to the courtroom in an armoured car with a large police guard.



The judge passed on the request to District and Sessions Judge Nazir Ahmed Gajana, who then asked the Home Department to allow a jail trial.

At the previous hearing, a panel of four lawyers from the Centre for Legal Aid, Assistance and Settlement, an NGO that aims to help protect Christians against persecution in Pakistan, took over Masih’s defence.

Advocate Tahir Bashir Sahotra, one of the lawyers on the panel, withdrew an application for after-arrest bail, contending that Masih would be safer in jail than on bail.

The judge had fixed May 29 for the framing of charges against Masih.

According to the FIR of the case, complainant Shahid Imran heard Sawan Masih using derogatory language about Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) as he was taking to his neighbour Muhammad Shafique. Imran said that he and Shafique told Masih to desist, but he did not listen. They then sought to hold him and turn him over to the police, but he fled. The FIR was registered at Badami Bagh police station under Section 295C of the Pakistan Penal Code, which carries the death penalty.

After the FIR was registered, several Christian families had to flee their homes as a mob set fire to churches and houses in Joseph Colony. The incident was widely condemned in Pakistan and abroad and an arson case was then registered against dozens of people.

Published in The Express Tribune, May 21st, 2013.

COMMENTS (2)

Leila Rage | 11 years ago | Reply

Pakistan is not worth living in

Fact Believer | 11 years ago | Reply

What I find really funny is that a case is be filed against the convicted and he has been taken into custody, prison and now to court for his hearing for the so-called crimes that he committed allegedly, while the mob that torched 150 homes and two churches are still at large.

People's lives, belongings, homes and holy books were torched in front of they eyes while they were helpless just because of one man.

I would really love to see the law that give open permission to arsonists to torch peoples homes and churches just because the other faith said something that they heard, saw or felt was blasphemous. Is this really the world we live in, where we destroy peoples lives, and homes over the wrong of one.

No proof submitted for what that man did, no voice recording or video recording, just a simple WORD OF MOUTH.. wow... its like when we were kids and used to put the blame on to our younger brothers and sisters for the wrong's that we committed. Totally childish.

I know one thing there is no faith in this WORLD that would allow for the desecration of humans lives, homes, and they churches, mosques or temples.

Hypocrisy to its BEST!! that is what we have shown the world, that is what we have labelled ourselves and our country. Sadly.

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