2004 PLP 96 (YLR)

Ch. Ahmad Saifullah Khatana for Petitioner. Mehmood‑ul‑Hassan Qureshi for the State. Date of hearing: 19th June, 2003. Both these petitions arise out of the same F.I.R., so I propose to dispose them of through this single order.

2. On 17‑4‑2002 Riaz Ahmad alongwith a contingent of police officials was available at Railway Crossing Kalabagh Road when Abdul Majeed presented his application before him against Liaqat Ali and others. It was alleged by the, complainant that Liaqat Ali resident of Turra Baz Town alongwith his wife Maqsood Bibi is keeping and managing a brothel in his house, where bad characters frequently come down to hire women for purpose of illicit intercourse and even now some men and women were available in the said brothel house for that, purpose. Rab Nawaz and Abdul Sattar had also seen this affair. Accordingly, A raid was conducted by the police party. The accused were arrested.

3. On being arrested they preferred their application before the learned Sessions Judge, Mianwali who made over the same to a learned Additional Sessions Judge for adjudication purpose. The said learned Additional Sessions Judge declined them the desired relief. Now through the instant petition they seek same relief.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners strenuously argues that since prosecution witnesses are no more supporting the prosecution story so case of the petitioners squarely falls within ambit of further inquiry and they may be released on bail; that the police did not obtain search warrant from a Court of competent jurisdiction and as such no legal sanctity can be attached to the raid proceedings. He has placed reliance on Muhammad Riaz v. S.H.O., Police Station City Jhang PLD 1998 Lahore 35 and 2001 MLD 277.

5. Learned counsel for the State opposes grant of bail to the petitioners.

6. Both the sides have been heard at length. Admittedly Abdul Sattar and Rab Nawaz whose names figure in the F.I.R. had tendered their duly sworn affidavits before the learned Additional Sessions Judge at Mianwali, certified copies of which have also been placed on the file or this case as Annexures "C" and "D". they have given a complete go‑bye to the prosecution story. No doubt the petitioners did not belong to Mianwali but their mere availability in the house of Liaqat Ali can hardly be considered as an incriminating; circumstance. Accusations brought against the petitioners call for further probe. For all these reasons petitioners are admitted to bail subject to their furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000 each with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court. H.B.T./M‑2233/L Bail granted.