TABARAK ULLAH Versus THE STATE

ORDER

This order shall dispose of two bail applications viz. Criminal Miscellaneous 4580/13 of 1987, titled Muhammad Shafi v. The State and Criminal Miscellaneous No. 4596/13 of 1987, titled Tabarak Ullah v. The State. Both the petitions arise out of F.I.R. No. 562/87, dated 17‑11‑1987, registered at Police Station Naulakha, Lahore, under sections 13, 14 and 18 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979.

2. It is alleged that on 17‑11‑1987, in the afternoon, Masood Aziz Inspector/ S.H.O. Police Station Naulakha, Lahore, received a secret information that one Mushtaq Ahmad had rented a hotel named Palace Hotel, where he used to supply women for prostitution to customers through his agents Chacha Mannan and Pardal Khan. He was further informed that even at that moment two women, namely, Bushra alias Naureen and Parveen alias Peeno were indulging in prostitution in the hotel. Consequently, the police officer arranged a raiding party. A constable was deployed as a fake customer. He (the constable) was able to bring with him Mst. Parveen for prostitution after giving Rs.100 to Pardal Khan. Pardal Khan and Mst. Parveen were apprehended while Mushtaq Ahmad and Chacha Mannan managed their escape. Mst. Parveen disclosed that Bushra alias Naureen and a customer named Muhammad Shafi petitioner herein had just entered in an adjoining room for Zina. On this information the said room was opened. Bushra alias Naureen and Muhammad Shafi petitioner were found in staked condition while preparing for the sexual intercourse. They were apprehended. It has further been alleged that Bushra alias Naureen passed information that she was sent for from Karachi by Tabarak Ullah petitioner. Tabarak Ullah was not apprehended on the spot. It has been stated that he also managed his escape alongwith Mushtaq Ahmad and Chacha Mannan,

3. Muhammad Shafi petitioner is said to have been apprehended while he was preparing for Zina. The offence allegedly committed by him falls under section 18 of Ordinance VII of 1979. This offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause. The raiding party mostly consisted of police officials with the exception of one Aziz Ahmad son of Nazir Ahmad, who is said to be a stock witness of the police.

4. As regards the case of Tabarak Ullah, it transpires from the F.I.R. that originally no information was received against him of being involved in the offence. It was only Bushra alias Naureen, a co‑accused who allegedly intimated that she was sent for from Karachi by Tabarak Ullah and Mushtaq Ahmad. Tabarak Ullah was not even apprehended on the spot. Statement of an accomplice is not legally: admissible. Thus, the case against him is that of further enquiry. Pardal Khan, a co‑accused against whom the allegations were of similar nature has already been admitted to bail by the Sessions Court.

5. In the above circumstances, without prejudice to the merits of the case, both the petitioners, namely, Muhammad Shafi and Tabarak Ullah are admitted to bail in the sum of Rs.20,000 with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the A.C. City, Lahore.

H.B.T./T‑30/L Bail granted.