MUHAMMAD ZAHID vs STATE and another
The petitioner filed a petition for post-arrest bail in connection with FIR No. 216/2011, registered under Sections 371-A and 371-B of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, at Police Station City Ali Pur, District Muzaffargarh. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner was apprehended at a brothel while preparing to commit adultery. The core legal question was whether the material on record established a prima facie case for the offenses charged, specifically regarding the hiring or possession of a woman for illicit intercourse. The Court observed that the prosecution witnesses merely reiterated the FIR contents and failed to provide evidence that the petitioner had hired any woman or taken possession of her person for illicit intercourse. Furthermore, the Court noted that the mere presence of the petitioner at the premises did not substantiate the allegation of running a brothel or gathering for adultery. Consequently, the Court held that the case required further inquiry and investigation. The bail application was accepted, and the petitioner was admitted to post-arrest bail upon furnishing bail bonds.
- Does the mere presence of an individual at a suspected prostitution den constitute sufficient evidence to establish an offense under Sections 371-A and 371-B of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- When does a criminal case warrant further inquiry for the purpose of granting post-arrest bail?
- Is the absence of evidence regarding the hiring or possession of a woman for illicit intercourse a valid ground for granting bail in cases involving Sections 371-A and 371-B of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Section 371-A, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 371-B, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
Petitioner seeks post arrest bail in case FIR No, 216/2011, dated 30.04.2011, under Sections 371-A/371-B PPC, Police Station City Ali Pur, District Muzaffargarh.
2. Allegedly the petitioner was arrested from a brothel being run by one Mst. Azra Mai along with Mst. Robina Mai while making preparation for adultery.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner has been roped in the false case by the local police just to prove its efficiency; that there is nothing on the record to show that the petitioner has ever hired any woman or taken possession of her person for commission of illicit intercourse as alleged by the prosecution.
4. The learned DPG has vehemently opposed the petition by contending that the petitioner was caught red handed from the prostitution den along with Mst. Robina Mai while making preparation to commit adultery.
5. P.Ws Zafar Hussain, ASI & Abdul Hakim, ASI have almost reiterated the contents of the FIR. It is not stated'by any witness that the petitioner had hired any woman or taken possession of her person to commit illicit intercourse. The mere fact that the petitioner and Mst. Robina Mai were present in the house of Mst. Azra Mai, does not show that the latter is running a brothel or they had gathered there in order to involve in adultery. The case against the petitioner clearly needs further probe and inquiry.
6. For the reasons supra, the application-is accepted and the petitioner is admitted to post arrest bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs, 50,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.