2016 PLP 974 (YLR)
Mst. KAINAT and 2 others — Petitioners Versus The STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2016 PLP 974 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Peshawar |
| Bench Members | Assadullah Khan Chamkani, J |
| Parties | Mst. KAINAT and 2 others — Petitioners Versus The STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2016 PLP 974 (YLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2016 PLP 974 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Peshawar bench comprising: Assadullah Khan Chamkani, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2016 PLP 974 (YLR) (Mst. KAINAT and 2 others — Petitioners Versus The STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Arshad Hussain Yousafzai for Petitioner.
- Mujahid Ali Khan A.A.-G. for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 7th January, 2016.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497(2)
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.371-A & 371-B
Selling and buying person for purpose of prostitution
No written complaint from the public or statement of any individual of the locality, or the surrounding houses to support the version of the complainant was available on record
No medical evidence was available to justify the allegation of sexual intercourse against (female) accused
No evidence had been collected in support of allegation of buying and selling persons for the purpose of prostitution by (male) accused persons
Application of Ss.371-A & 371-B, P.P.C., in circumstances, was a matter which required further probe, because provisions of said sections, would only apply to person who sell or purchase any person with the intent that such person would be used for the purpose of prostitution or illicit intercourse
No such evidence had been collected
In absence of any such warrant and association of the notable of the area, alleged raid could not be termed any better than an intrusion of the privacy of the citizens; which was an act prohibited by the Constitution, law and the Holy Quran
Legislature in their wisdom, having regard to the existing norms of the society, were conscious of the fact that, if cases under such offences were permitted to be registered on spy information; or on the complaints lodged by anonymous person, such practice would have encouraged reports involving innocent men or women for ill designs
Accused persons had no previous history in such like offences
Case of accused persons being arguable for the purpose of bail, they were admitted to bail, in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
ASSADULLAH KHAN CHAMKANI, J.
Petitioners
1. Mst. Kainat
2. Mst. Meena and
3. Anwar, seeks bail in case FIR No.1446 dated 11.11.2015, registered under sections under sections 371-A, 371-B in Police Station Paharipura, Peshawar.
2. According to prosecution case, Sajid Khan ASI, on receipt of public complaints qua running of prostitution den in the house of one Abdul Hameed, he along with other police officials, raid the said house and found petitioners Anwar and Mst. Kainat in an objectionable position, resultantly, both along with petitioner Mst. Meena present in the said house were nabbed on the spot, hence, this case.
3. Arguments heard and record perused.
4. On the face of record, there is no written complaint from the public or statement of any individual of the locality or the surrounding houses to support the version of the complainant ASI. No medical evidence is available to justify the allegation of sexual inter-course against the petitioners. No shred of evidence has been collected so far in support of allegation of buying and selling person for the purpose of prostitution by the petitioners, therefore, in the circumstances, application of sections 371-A and 371-B, P.P.C. is a matter which requires further probe because provisions of sections 371-A and 371-B, P.P.C. only apply to persons who sell or purchase any person with the intent that such person would be used for the purpose of prostitution or illicit intercourse. When learned A.A.-G. was asked about evidence so as to fulfill the ingredients of the above two offences, he fairly and frankly conceded that no such evidence has been collected so far. In absence of any search warrant and association of the notable of the area, the alleged raid cannot be termed any better than an intrusion on the privacy of the citizens, which is an act prohibited by the Constitution, law and the Holy Quran. The Legislature in their wisdom, having regard to the existing norms of the society, were conscious of the fact that if cases, under such offences are permitted to be registered on spy information or on the complaints lodged by anonymous persons, such practice would have encouraged false reports involving innocent men or women for ill designs. The petitioners are having no previous history in such like offences.
5. For what has been discussed above, the case of the petitioners is arguable for the purpose of bail. Accordingly, this petition is allowed. Accused/petitioners are admitted to bail provided each one of them furnishes bail bonds in the sum of Rs.3,00,000 with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned Illaqa Judicial Magistrate/MOD, concerned. The sureties must be local, reliable and men of means. HBT/13/P Bail granted.