2008 PLP 722 (MLD)

M. BILAL KHAN, J.

Zahid Hussain son of Sadiq Hussain, Ameer Tehsin-ul-Haq son of Muhammad Hanif (petitioners in Criminal Miscellaneous No.959/B of 2008), Muhammad Shafique son of Muhammad Bashir, Muhammad Ishaq son of Nazir Ahmad (petitioners in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 1023/B of 2008), Noreen Akhtar daughter of Qadir Khan (petitioner in Criminal Miscellaneous No.1050/B of 2008), Muhammad Ismail son of Haji Miraj Din, Mushtaq Ahmad son of Muhammad Sharif (petitioners in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 1051/B of 2008) and Muhammad Naeem son of Muhammad Anwar (petitioner in Criminal Miscellaneous No.1148/B of 2008), by filing these petitions seek post-arrest bail in case F.I R. No.1062, dated 14-12-2007, registered with Police Station Satto Katla, Lahore for offences under sections 371-A, 371-B, P.P.C. at the instance of Asif Hameed, S.-I. of the said Police Station. I propose to dispose of all these petitions together through this single order.

2. Precisely the allegation against the petitioners in all the petitions, according to the F.I.R., was that during a raid conducted by the complainant along with his compatriots on spy information that Bungalow No.91/J-1 was being used as a brothel, they had been found busy in committing Zina in different rooms of the said house.

3. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties at considerable length and going through the record brought by Niaz Ahmad, A.S.-I., it has been observed that the offence under section 371-A, P.P.C. relates to selling a person for the purpose of prostitution etc., whereas section 371-B, P.P.C. relates to buying a person for the purpose of prostitution etc. Both the aforesaid penal provisions in their respective explanations speak of running or managing a brothel where in a nutshell women trade is being carried for the purpose of prostitution. It is for this reason that the legislature in its wisdom has prescribed imprisonment for life. Even taking the prosecution case at its face value, the petitioners at worst may be customers and it is yet to be seen as to whether the aforesaid penal provisions of section 371-A, 371-B, P.P.C. could be invoked against them. Even otherwise, there is nothing available on record to show that the Police had obtained any search warrants for conducting a raid at the aforesaid house. Reliance could profitably be made to the cases of Mst. Rabia Bibi v. The State (2004 PCr.LJ 1451-Lahore), Shafiq-ur-Rehman v. The State (2006 MLD 357-Lahore), Saeed Bibi alias Sada and 4 others v. The State (2005 MLD 1391) and Zeshan Ahmad v. The State (2007 YLR 1296), wherein it had clearly been held that no raid under the guise of looking for proclaimed offender or the suspects could be conducted. It has yet not been determined as to who was the owner of the property, who were the tenants and what was the role of the owner and the tenant. It has also not so far been conclusively determined as to in what connection the petitioners were found present at the said place. In these circumstances, case of further inquiry within the meanings of subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. is made out in favour of the petitioners.

4. Resultantly, I allow these petitions and admit the petitioners to post-arrest bail subject to their furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000 each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court. H.B.T./Z-2/L Bail granted.