MUHAMMAD IRFAN etc vs STATE
This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by the petitioners, who were charged under Sections 371-A and 371-B of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, following allegations of involvement in the sale and purchase of women for prostitution. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to bail given the evidence on record and the nature of the allegations. The Court observed that the FIR merely placed the petitioners in an adjoining room to where other individuals were present, without establishing that any act of buying or selling for prostitution had occurred or that the petitioners were directly involved in such activities. Finding that the investigation was complete and that the prosecution had failed to provide sufficient evidence to connect the petitioners to the alleged offences, the Court held that the case warranted further inquiry. Consequently, the Court granted post-arrest bail to the petitioners, establishing the principle that bail may be granted where the prosecution fails to establish a prima facie case or where the evidence requires further inquiry at trial.
- Does the mere presence of an accused in an adjoining room to an alleged site of prostitution constitute sufficient evidence to deny bail under Sections 371-A and 371-B of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- When does a case fall within the scope of 'further inquiry' justifying the grant of bail under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Section 371-A, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 371-B, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
Muhammad Irfan son of Amanat Ali and Muhammad Afzal son of Nazar Hussain petitioners seek post arrest bail in case FIR No, 285/2009 dated 9.6.2009 for offence under Section 371-A and 371-B PPC registered at Police Station City Layyah.
2. Allegation against the petitioners and their co-accused is that they were found selling and purchasing of women for the purposes of prostitution when the complainant and other witnesses apprehended them.
3. It is inter-alia contended that petitioners are innocent and have falsely been involved in this case; that no incriminating evidence connecting the petitioner with the alleged offence was collected at the place of occurrence; that no money was recovered from the petitioners; that the petitioners were not found involved in committing zina with any lady; that investigation of the case is complete and they are no more required for investigation purpose; that petitioners are behind the bars since their arrest and thus prays that petitioners be allowed to be released on bail.
4. Conversely, learned Deputy Prosecutor General opposes the submission made at bar by learned counsel for the petitioners and submits that police has no enmity with the present petitioners to implicate them falsely in this case; that case against the petitioners falls within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.P.C., therefore, the petitioners do not deserve any leniency to grant them bail.
5. Arguments heard. Record perused.
6. As per FIR the only allegation against the petitioners is that they were sitting in the adjoining room owned by Mst. Naseem Begum whereas in the other room other ladies/prostitutes were sitting. It does not reveal that the alleged offence of zina was committed or was being committed at the time of raid conducted by the police. Section 371-A or 371-B PPC is applicable only when the person is found in buying and selling a person for the purpose of prostitution etc. none of the petitioners was found indulged in such buying and selling. The petitioners are confined in the Jail.
The investigation of the case is complete. Although the petitioners are named in the FIR yet no evidence is available on record to show their involvement in the prostitution business. All these factors constitute need for further inquiry. Therefore, I allow this petition. The petitioners are admitted to bail subject to their furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs, 50,000/- (fifty thousand) each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.