MUHAMMAD FAIZ Versus State M. Saliheen Mughal and M. Shoaib Abbasi , Ch. Ejaz Yousaf
This criminal miscellaneous matter arises from a petition seeking post-arrest bail in a case involving allegations of being found in a brothel and preparing to commit Zina. The core legal question is whether the petitioner's case falls within the scope of further inquiry under criminal jurisprudence, warranting the grant of bail, given the lack of direct evidence regarding the payment of money or any overt act of Zina. The court held that since no evidence was available to prove that the recovered money was paid by the applicant and no overt act toward committing Zina was attributed to him—coupled with the fact that a co-accused facing similar allegations had already been granted bail—the case constituted one of further inquiry. Consequently, the court set aside the trial court's order and admitted the applicant to post-arrest bail. The key principle laid down is that where there is an absence of direct evidence connecting an accused to an essential element of the crime or overt acts, and a co-accused has already been released, the case warrants the grant of bail on the ground of further inquiry.
- Whether an accused found in a suspected brothel without direct evidence of paying money or committing an overt act of Zina is entitled to post-arrest bail on the ground of further inquiry?
- Does the grant of bail to a co-accused provide a valid ground for releasing another accused facing similar allegations?
ORDER
Criminal Miscellaneous No.142/I of 2005
CH. EJAZ YOUSAF, C.J .--- Learned counsel for the applicant/ 'petitioner has contended that allegation against. the applicant is that he at the time of raid was found sitting with female accused namely, Mst. Kausar in a room of the house which was allegedly used as a brothel and that both were preparing to commit Zina, for which a sum of Rs.400 was paid by the applicant to Mst. Rubi. He has contended that since no evidence was available that the money recovered from the possession of Mst. Rubi was paid to her by the applicant nor from the evidence it appears that applicant was preparing to commit Zina with female accused namely, Mst. Kausar who has already been admitted to bail by the learned trial Judge, therefore, the applicant's case too, being of further inquiry, the learned trial Judge has gone wrong in law, in not allowing concession of bail to the applicant.
2. Learned counsel for the State has candidly conceded that as per record nobody had seen the applicant paying money to Mst. Rubi. However, stated that both i.e. the applicant as well as Mst. Kausar were found sitting in a room of house which was allegedly used as brothel, therefore, the possibility that their intention was to commit Zina, could not have been ruled out.
3. Since, as admitted by the learned counsel for the State no evidence is available to believe that money recovered from Mst. Rubi was paid to her by the applicant and no overt act towards commission of Zina is attributed to him, therefore, I see force in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the applicant that the instant case being of further inquiry, the trial Judge ought to have allowed concession of bail to the applicant. The impugned order dated 25-4-2005 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Taxila, therefore, is set aside and the applicant is admitted to bail in the sum of Rs.50,000 with one surety and P.R. bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Judge.
H.B.T./25/FSC Bail granted.