2003 PLP 2387 (YLR)

S. 497(2)

Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979), Ss.10/13/14

Bail, grant of

Further inquiry

Case against the accused was of further inquiry for the reason that no independent person was associated with the raid

Two witnesses mentioned by Police were not residents of the locality, but were living 3/4 miles away from place of occurrence

F.I.R. did not disclose that accused were related to person who allegedly was carrying a brothel house

Record had revealed that both accused ladies were related to said person i.e. one was said to be wife of that person and other was his sister-in-law who was widow of his brother

Was highly unbelievable and improbable that said person had given his own female members for the purpose of Zina

Accused were admitted to bail, in circumstances. Rasheed Afzaal Cheema for Petitioners. Syed Niaz Ahmad Shah for the State Petitioners have been booked in a case F.I.R. No.212, dated 26-5-2002 under sections 13/14/10, Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, registered at Police Station City, Sadiqabad, District Rahimyar Khan. This F.I.R. has been got registered on the report of Niaz Ali, Sub Inspector who claims that on receipt of information that Muhammad Akram is carrying a brothel house at his home, he, after having obtained permission and warrant of raid, raided the said house on 26-5-2002 and found that Muhammad Aslam was committing Zina with Mst. Surrayya Begum, whereas in the other room, one Yousaf was committing Zina with Mst. Muniran. Thus, the case was registered and inter alia the accused have been arrested. The petitioners applied for their bail before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sadiqabad, who, vide order dated 11-6-2002, dismissed their bail petition. Hence, the instant petition.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that there is no independent evidence on the record that Muhammad Akram was carrying a brothel house. It is also stated that Mst. Surrayya Begum is sister-in-law of Muhammad Akram, being widow of his brother Hatim Ali, whereas Mst. Muniran is the wife of Muhammad Akram. It is most unlikely and improbable that a person would present his wife and sister-in-law for the purposes of Zina. It is further stated that no person from the locality was associated with the raid proceedings and thus, the entire case is a false and fabricated one. It is also stated that the raid has been conducted by Niaz Ali, S.-I., who got the case registered and he was also the investigator of the case. Yesterday, the S.H.O. was directed to appear in person before Court. The S.H.O. is personally present and states that the investigation has already been completed and the challan has been submitted in Court:

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and find it to be a case of further inquiry for the reason that no independent person was associated with the raid. Besides, as admitted by Niaz Ali, S.-L, who is present in Court today that two witnesses mentioned by the police are not residents of the locality. They are living 3/4 miles away from the place of occurrence. Furthermore it is not disclosed in the F.I.R. that Mst, Muniran and Mst. Surrayya are related to Muhammad Akram and it has now come on record that both the ladies are related to Muhammad Akram. It is highly unbelievable and improbable that Muhammad Akram had given his, own female members for the purposes of Zina. In the light of the above, the petitioners are admitted to bail in the sum of Rs.50.000 each with two sureties each' in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court. H.B.T./S-610/L Bail granted.