SAJJAD vs STATE and another
The matter arises from a criminal petition seeking post-arrest bail in FIR No. 566 of 2011 registered under Sections 371-A and 371-B of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station City Jaranwala, Faisalabad, relating to allegations of running a brothel and human trafficking for prostitution. The core legal question is whether the petitioner, alleged to be found at the premises committing zina, falls within the ambit of Sections 371-A and 371-B, and whether further inquiry is warranted given the lack of search warrants and inconclusive investigation regarding property ownership and tenant roles. The Lahore High Court held that taking the prosecution case at its face value, the petitioner at worst may be deemed a customer, and the applicability of the penal provisions against him required further determination, noting the absence of search warrants and reliance on mere suspicion. The court admitted the petitioner to post-arrest bail, establishing that where prosecution allegations rest on suspicion and require further inquiry into the applicability of specific penal provisions, a case for further inquiry under criminal procedure is made out.
- Whether a customer found at alleged premises can be prosecuted under Sections 371-A and 371-B of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Does the absence of search warrants during a police raid entitle an accused to post-arrest bail?
- Whether a case resting on suspicion rather than concrete evidence warrants the grant of bail for further inquiry?
- Section 371-A, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 371-B, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
Sajjad son of Maskeen had filed this petition, seeking post arrest bail in case FIR No, 566/2011 dated 23.06.2011 u/S. 371-A, 371-B, P.P.C. registered with Police Station city Jaranwala, Faisalabad.
2. Precisely, the allegation against the petitioner, according to the FIR is that during the raid conducted by the complainant along with his compatriots on spy information that a rented house situated in Mohallah Raza Abad was being used as a brothel, he along with his co-accused had been found busy in committing zina with Mst. Shama who had been purchased by them through one Mustafa for Rs, 1200/-.
3. After having heard learned counsel for the parties at length and going through the record it has been observed that the offence under Section 371-A, P.P.C. relates to selling a person for the purpose of prostitution etc., whereas, Section 371-B, P.P.C. relates to buying a person for the purpose of prostitution etc. Both the above said penal provisions in their respective explanations speak of running or managing a brothel where, in the nutshell, woman trade is carried for the purpose of prostitution. It is for this reason that the legislature in its wisdom has prescribed punishment of imprisonment for life for such offences. Even taking the prosecution case at its face value, the petitioner at the worst may be deemed a customer and it is yet to be seen as to whether the aforesaid penal provisions of Section 371-A, 371-B, P.P.C. could be invoked against him. There is nothing available on record to show that the police had obtained any search warrants for conducting a raid at the aforesaid house. Reliance can profitably be made to the cases of Mst.Rabia Bibi vs. The State (2004 P.Cr.LJ 1451), Zeshan Ahmad vs. The State (2007 YLR 1296) and Saeed Bibi alias Sada and 4 others vs. The State (2005 M LD 1391), wherein it had been clearly held that no raid under the guise of looking for proclaimed offender or the suspects could be conducted. It has not been determined yet as to who was the owner of the property, who was the tenant and what was the role of the owner and that of the tenant. No evidence has been collected during investigation by the Investigating Officer as to the act of commission of zina by the petitioner or by his co-accused. The story contained in the FIR runs more on suspicions than the estimations.
4. Therefore, the instant petition is allowed and the petitioner is admitted to post arrest bail subject to furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs, 1,00,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.