MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE Versus STATE

ORDER

Muhammad Rafique, son of Mohibullah, Basit, son of Amir Hussain, Sheraz, son of Hurmat, Mahana, son of Pareekh, Abdul Sattar, son of Ali Ashr4 Zain-ul-Abadin, son of Saeed Ali, Shanti wife of Sheraz, Rehno, son of Mahmoon, Meeno, daughter of Pareekh, Munawara, daughter of. Amir Hussain, Fatima wife of Mahna, Pahroie wife of Robeel, Sheehlina daughter of Rafique, Zohra Khatoon wife of Rafique, Hajran wife of Muhammad Tufail, Mumtaz wife of Basit, Salma, daughter of Kanwal Hussain, Laila daughter of Kanwal Hussain, Asma daughter of Muhammad Rafique, Raheela, daughter of Dunnu, Bano daughter of Qasim Ali, Mouna, daughter of Rehmat AIL have moved this petition for their release on bail in a case registered against them under sections 13,14 and 16 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, and section 4/52/55 of the Pakistan (Control of Entry) Ordinance, 1952, with Police Station Pattoke, District Kasur, vide F.I.R. No.451 of 1991.

2. The allegations against the petitioners are that they indulge in the sale of people especially the women at large scale and also use their women for prostitution purposes for monetary consideration.

3. It is contended with vehemence by the learned counsel that there was not an iota of evidence to connect them with the commission of the crime. It is maintained that allegations in general have been levelled against the petitioners that they commit offences pertaining to Zina. The learned counsel for the Federation. and the Province have opposed the bail petition on the ground that the petitioners are foreigners and as such cannot be admitted to bail.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at some length. The record was also seen by me carefully.

The perusal of the F.I.R. reveals that the allegations are vague in nature. It is stated that they sell the person of their women for monetary purposes. It is evident that there is absolutely no evidence to connect them with the commission of the offence of Zina. There may be allegations that they have entered the territory of Pakistan without passport or valid documents. Some of the petitioners are women and children. They have. been sent to jail. Their uersons are no more needed by the Investigating Agency. Almost under similar circumstances, accused were allowed bail by this Court vide Abdul Matin v. State Criminal Miscellaneous No.3148/B of 1991. I do not find any distinction in these two cases. The allegations against the petitioners do not fall under the prohibitory clause. They are, thus, entitled to the grant of bail relief. Accordingly, I admit all the petitioners to bail in the sum of Rs.15,000 (Rupees fifteen thousand) each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Assistant Commissioner/Deputy Magistrate, Chunian.

N.H.Q./M-1179/L Bail granted.