MUHAMMAD SALEEM Versus State

ORDER

SYED SHABBAR RAZA RIZVI, J .---The learned counsel seeks post-arrest bail of petitioner in F.I.R. No.876 of 2007 dated 31-10-2007. The said F.I.R. was registered at Police Station Satto Katla, Lahore, under sections 371-A and 371-B, P.P.C.

2. Briefly, according to the F.I.R. secret information was received by the complainant/police officer that a guest house for the purpose of commission of Zina was being 'run by the petitioner and if a raid was conducted, the accused person named in the F.I.R. would be arrested. Pursuant to the above, a raiding party was constituted. As a result of raid, several accused persons were arrested including the present petitioner.

3. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the contents of F.I.R. do not constitute offence under section 371-A and 371-B, P.P.C. and provisions of sections 96, 98, 103 & 165, Cr.P.C. have not been observed in the raid. On the other hand, the learned Deputy Prosecutor General opposes the bail application and submits that section 371-A, P.P.C. is fully applicable to the petitioner.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned D.P.G., Punjab. According to section 371-A, P.P.C. whoever sells etc. or otherwise disposes of any person with intent that such person shall at anytime be employed or used for the purpose of prostitution or illicit intercourse with any person etc. shall be punished with imprisonment which may extend to twenty-five years. The above language of section 371-A, P.P.C. is apparently attracted in view of the statement of facts in the instant F.I.R. The learned counsel for the petitioner also vehemently referred to PLD 1999 Lah. 297 and PLD 1998 Lah.

35. Both these judgments refer to the provisions of sections 103, 165, 96 and 98, Cr.P.C. Section 96 deals with issuance of search warrant where production of any document or other thing is necessary or desirable for the purpose of any investigation, inquiry, trial or other proceedings under the Code by or before a Court. Similarly, section 98 is applicable when a search of a house is required which is used for the deposit or sale of stolen property. Section 103, is meant for search of "things". Likewise, section 165, Cr.P.C. also relates to search of "things" by a police officer. An accused "person" is not a "thing". When a person is required to be arrested Chapter V is relevant and in this regard section 47 is pertinent which reads as under:---

"If any person acting under a warrant of arrest, or any police officer having authority to arrest, has reason to believe that the person to be arrested has entered into, or is within, any place, the person residing in, or being in charge of such place shall, on demand of such person acting as aforesaid or such police officer, allow him free ingress thereto, and afford all reasonable facilities for a search therein."

In the context reading of rules 25.23; 25.24 and 26.1 would be helpful.

In the above reproduction of section 47 directly related portion for the purpose of present discussion is that:---

"If any police officer having authority to arrest has reason to believe that the person to be arrested is within any place, the person residing in, or being in charge of, such place shall, on demand of such police officer allow him free ingress thereto, and afford all reasonable facilities for a search therein."

Since the accused persons, mentioned in the F.I.R., were reported involved in the commission of cognizable offences, therefore, they were required to be arrested. The police officers/I.O. were in their right to conduct the raid.

5. As far as the application of Article 14 of the Constitution is concerned, the same is also not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. Article 14 relates to privacy of a home. A guest house is a commercial organization and cannot be equated with a private house which is also suspected or being used for commission of the offences, such-like mentioned in the F.I.R. The offence alleged against the petitioner is also covered by the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C.

6. In view of the above discussion, there appear reasonable grounds for believing that the petitioner has been guilty of an offence punishable with imprisonment for more than 10 years, hence, covered by the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. This bail application is dismissed for the above reasons.

H.B.T./M-608/L ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Bail refused.