SAEED BIBI alias SADA and 4 others vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by five petitioners accused of offences under the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 and the Prohibition Order, following a police raid based on secret information. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to bail given the circumstances of the police raid and the statutory provisions regarding the bail of women. The Court observed that the police acted in violation of Section 103, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and found the prosecution's narrative implausible, noting that individuals would unlikely continue illicit activities upon the arrival of police officials in a government vehicle. Furthermore, the Court highlighted that police cannot raid private residences based solely on secret information. Holding that the female petitioners were entitled to the benefit of the proviso to Section 497(1), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and noting that a co-accused with a similar role had already been granted bail, the Court admitted the petitioners to bail. The judgment reaffirms the necessity of procedural compliance in police raids and the mandatory consideration of statutory protections for women in bail matters.
- Does a police raid conducted in violation of Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 provide grounds for the grant of bail?
- Are women entitled to the benefit of the proviso to Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 in cases involving the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979?
- Can the police raid a private house based solely on secret information provided by an informant?
- Section 13, Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979
- Section 14, Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979
- Section 10(2), Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979
- Article 4, Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order 1979
- Section 103, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 497(1), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' The petitioners have sought their post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.185 registered at Police Station City, Sadiqabad on 21-4-2003 for offences under sections 13/14/10(2) of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 read with Article 4 of the Prohibition Order.
2. Briefly, the allegations as levelled against the petitioners in the F.I.R. Are; that Abdul Sattar, S.-I.
Police Station City, Sadiqabad while he was on patrol duty along with other police officials received a secret information on 21-4-2003 that Zina was being committed at the Chobaras of one Amanat Ali. The complainant along with other police officials reached the scene of occurrence and heard conversation going on between males and one female who were settling terms for zina-bil-raza.
Allegedly, all the persons present at the Chobara were hault up by the police including co-accused Rasheed Ahmad who allegedly holding a small bottle of liquor in his hand.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record. It has been noticed that the complainant has acted in utter violation of the provisions of section 103, Cr.P.C.; the story as narrated in the F.I.R. Is not plausible as it would not be possible for the accused not the spot five police officials who had approached the scene of occurrence in a Government vehicle, ordinary circumstances after seeing the police they would not continue with their practice.
It was held in the case of Riaz v. S.H.O. (PLD 1998 Lahore 35) that in suchlike cases the police could not raid the houses of the citizens on the basis of secret information furnished by a `Mukhber . Three of the petitioners A are women whose case attract the provisions of proviso I to subsection (1) of section 497, Cr.P.C. While petitioner No.4 Amanat Ali has been saddled with somewhat similar role as that of Rasheed Ahmad co-accused who had already been admitted to bail by this Court vide order dated 26-5-2003. Consequently, I admit the petitioner to bail subject to their furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand only) each with one surety each in like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.