GHAZANFAR ABBAS Versus State

ORDER

IQBAL HAMEED-UR-REHMAN, J.--- I would like to dispose of Criminal Miscellaneous No.5040/B of 2009 and Criminal Miscellaneous No.5397/B of 2009 by this single order arising out of the same F.I.R.

2. The learned counsel for petitioners seek post arrest bail of the petitioners in F.I.R. No.132 of 2009 dated 19-4-2009' under sections 371-A, 371-B, P.P.C. registered at Police Station City Jhang.

3. Briefly, according to the F.I.R. the complainant Zulfiqar Ali Assistant Sub-Inspector received a secret information and conducted a raid at the house of the petitioner, Imran and Sonia were caught red-handed in one room while the petitioner and Kauser were recovered from the second room and Mst. Ejaz daughter of Siraj was also found in the courtyard of the house sitting on a cot waiting for her turn.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners states that it is a case of no evidence; that the petitioner is living with his wife and children in the said house where the offence under sections 371-A, 371-B, P.P.C. is stated to have been committed; that it is not imaginable in our society that where the wife and young daughters and sons are residing with the petitioner, as such offences can be committed. The wife of the petitioner had also submitted an affidavit that the case is false; that no such occurrence ever took-place. It is stated that no witness from the locality has been associated with the raiding party as such a complete violation of section 103, Cr.P.C. has' been committed as well as no search warrants were obtained before 'raiding the house of the petitioner, which were mandatory for the raiding party to obtain search warrants before conducting the raid from the Magistrate as required under section 105, Cr.P.C. It is further stated that the complainant in the case is also the Investigating Officer of the case and moreover, when the petitioner had made a complaint against the complainant and inquiry was pending against the complainant, the instant case has been manoeuvred in order to pressurize the petitioner to withdraw the complaint against the complainant. It is further stated that all the other co-accused have been granted bail; that the petitioner has no previous record.

5. On the other hand, learned A.P.-G. vehemently opposed the grant of bail to the petitioner.

6. Arguments heard, record perused.

7. On the perusal of the record it appears that sufficient material against the petitioner is not available to substantiate the commission of the offence. There appears to be no eye-witness before conducting the raid. No search warrant has been obtained before raiding the house of the petitioner. There is complete violation of sections 103 and 105, Cr.P.C. Moreover, the mala fide urged on behalf of the petitioner that he had lodged a complaint against the complainant Zulfiqar Ali A.S.-I. who is also the Investigating Officer of the case and the same is pending. To some extent it is substantiated which makes the case of the petitioner doubtful and mala fide involvement of the petitioner in the instant case cannot be ruled out, in the circumstances, the case of the petitioner becomes that of further inquiry. Moreover, where the complainant and the Investigating Officer is the one and the same person, the same has not been approved by the superior Court and in such-like cases the bail had usually been granted. Moreover, the petitioner is residing with his whole family, wife, grown up daughters and sons and in such circumstances, the business of brothel cannot be imagined in the presence of children and wife. Furthermore the co-accused of the petitioners have been allowed bail therefore, the petitioner is also entitled for the grant of bail.

8. In view of above, this bail application is allowed subject to petitioners' furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs.50,000 each with one surety each in the, like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.

H.B.T./G-60/L Bail granted.