TARIQ PERWAIZ Versus STATE
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by a husband and wife against the order of the Lahore High Court refusing them pre-arrest bail in a case registered under the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979. The core legal question concerns whether the petitioners were entitled to pre-arrest bail where allegations of operating a prostitution den were supported by independent witnesses and police raid findings, notwithstanding their contention of absence from the spot and lack of knowledge. The Supreme Court held that the petitioners were not entitled to pre-arrest bail as the first information report indicated their presence and subsequent escape, and there was no record indication of false implication or strong malice against the police. The petition was accordingly dismissed and leave to appeal refused, reinforcing the principle that pre-arrest bail requires clear and strong grounds of mala fides or false implication, which were absent in this case.
- Whether pre-arrest bail can be granted when the first information report explicitly notes the presence and escape of the accused?
- Are allegations of police malice sufficient to grant pre-arrest bail if they are not clear and strong?
- Does the absence of the accused from the spot at the exact time of a raid entitle them to pre-arrest bail as a matter of right?
- Section 13, Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979
- Section 14, Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979
- Section 18, Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979
ORDER
SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.- - The two petitioners, husband and wife, seek leave to appeal against the order of the Lahore High Court dated 1-7-1987 refusing them bail before arrest in a case registered under sections 13, 14 and 18 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979.
2. On information being received that the two petitioners were using bungalow No.458, Neelum Block, Allama Iqbal Town, as a prostitution den, got a decoy witness and through him established the fact, raided the place and recovered certain persons and registered a case on the 30th of May, 1987.
3. The petitioners sought bail before arrest from the Sessions Judge who rejected it on the ground that no malice was attributed to the police and there were independent witnesses in support of the case. The High Court also refused them bail before arrest.
4. Mr. M.M. Saeed Beg, Advocate, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted before us that the petitioners were not apprehended at the spot nor were they present there and they could legitimately claim to be ignorant of what was happening during their absence, if at all the allegations were true. He also stated that one of the accused in the case namely Ashfaq has already been admitted to bail.
5. The first information report itself shows that the two petitioners were present but managed to escape. The correctness or otherwise of the statement will certainly be examined at the trial. As noted by the two Courts, there is not the slightest indication on the record at this stage that any of the witnesses was prompted to implicate them on a false charge. There is some allegation against the police officer, but that too is not very clear and strong enough to entitle the petitioners in a case like this to bail before arrest.
In the circumstances, we find no merit in the petition and leave to appeal is refused.
S.Q./T-14/S Leave refused.