Mst. SHUMAILA vs THE STATE
This matter arises from petitions filed by Mst. Shumaila, Mst. Kaneez, and Mst. Parveen seeking post-arrest bail in F.I.R. No. 147 dated 2-5-2005 registered at Police Station Urban Area, Sargodha for offences under section 13/14 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were prima facie connected to the alleged offence of running or visiting a brothel house for immoral purposes. The Lahore High Court observed that the only allegation against the petitioners was that they were standing outside the house in question and that no worthwhile material existed to connect them with the crime. The court held that the allegations were dubious, bringing the case within the scope of further inquiry under sub-section (2) of section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Consequently, the bail petitions were allowed, and the petitioners were admitted to bail subject to furnishing appropriate surety bonds.
- Does standing outside a house allegedly used as a brothel constitute sufficient ground to deny post-arrest bail?
- When does a criminal case qualify as one of further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Section 13, Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979
- Section 14, Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979
- Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' M. BILAL KHAN, J.-Mst. Shumaila daughter of Muhammad Yousaf, petitioner by filing Criminal Miscellaneous N0.3947-B of 2005 and Mst. Kaneez wife of Gulzar and Mst. Parveen wife of Sher by filing Criminal Miscellaneous No,4334-B of 2005 seek their post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No, 147 dated 2-5-2005, registered at Police Station Urban Area, Sargodha for offences under section 13/14 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance No,Vll of 1979 at the instance of Abdul Latif Khan, S.L of the said Police Station.
2. Briefly the case of the prosecution as it unfolded in the F.I.R, was that the complainant, on receipt of the information laid before him by one Sufi Irshad Ahmad that Mst. Sakina Bibi was running a brothel house and she had invited six females and six males for immoral purpose, had raided her house and apprehended thirteen persons, six females and seven males, named in the F.I.R, inclusive of the petitioners, who were standing nearby the front door of her house.
3. The petitioners' plea for post-arrest bail did not find favour with the leamed Additional Sessions Judge, Sargodha, who turned down the same vide order dated 11-5-2005. Hence, this petition.
4. I have heard the Teamed counsel for both the sides and have also gone through the record brought by Muhammad Akram, A.S.-I., Police Station Urban Area, Sargodha.
5. Perusal of the F.I.R, itself reveals that the only allegation against the petitioners was that they .Were standing outside the house of Mst. Sakina Bibi and nothing beyond that. The record also reveals that at present there is no worthwhile material available to connect them with the commission of the alleged offences. In view of the prima facie dubious allegations in the F.I.R., case of the petitioners becomes one of further inquiry within the meaning of sub-section (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C.
6. Resultantly, these petitions are allowed and the petitioners are admitted to bail subject to their furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs,10,000 (Rupees ten thousand) each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.