2018 MLD 1446 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT
Side Appellant : SALMAN GHAZANFAR
Side Opponent : State
Ss.497( 2 ) & 103---Penal Code (XLV of 1860),Ss. 371-A & 371-B---Selling and buying person for purpose of prostitution---Bail, grant of---Prohibitory clause of S. 497, Cr.P.C---Scope---Raid by police at private place without search warrant---Effect---Allegation against petitioners was that two male and female accused persons were found in objectionable position while the rest of accused persons were present inside the flat---Place where raid was conducted on spy information was not public place but was owned and possessed by private individual---Neither any search warrant was obtained nor any effort was made by police in that behalf---No respectable from the locality was associated in the raid---Raid in such a situation could only be termed as intrusion which was prohibited by law---Police Officials by not obtaining search warrant for raiding the house in question had violated the mandatory provisions of S. 103, Cr.P.C.---Sections 371-A & 371-B, P.P.C. were not applicable under the circumstances, therefore, case of accused persons fell within the purview of S. 497(2), Cr.P.C.---Accused persons were admitted to bail, in circumstances.
2016 YLR 974 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT
Side Appellant : Mst. KAINAT
Side Opponent : State
S. 497(2)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.371-A & 371-B---Selling and buying person for purpose of prostitution---Bail, grant of---Further inquiry---No written complaint from the public or statement of any individual of the locality, or the surrounding houses to support the version of the complainant was available on record---No medical evidence was available to justify the allegation of sexual intercourse against (female) accused---No evidence had been collected in support of allegation of buying and selling persons for the purpose of prostitution by (male) accused persons---Application of Ss.371-A & 371-B, P.P.C., in circumstances, was a matter which required further probe, because provisions of said sections, would only apply to person who sell or purchase any person with the intent that such person would be used for the purpose of prostitution or illicit intercourse---No such evidence had been collected---In absence of any such warrant and association of the notable of the area, alleged raid could not be termed any better than an intrusion of the privacy of the citizens; which was an act prohibited by the Constitution, law and the Holy Quran---Legislature in their wisdom, having regard to the existing norms of the society, were conscious of the fact that, if cases under such offences were permitted to be registered on spy information; or on the complaints lodged by anonymous person, such practice would have encouraged reports involving innocent men or women for ill designs---Accused persons had no previous history in such like offences---Case of accused persons being arguable for the purpose of bail, they were admitted to bail, in circumstances.
: 2014 MLD 599 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : IQRA HUSSAIN
Side Opponent : S.H.O. POLICE STATION NAWAB TOWN
Ss.371-A & 371-B---Constitution of Pakistan, Art.199---Constitutional petition---Quashing of F.I.R.---Selling and buying persons for prostitution---Raid was made at guest house in search of some proclaimed offender, instead accused were arrested who were found there in objectionable position busy in some obscene activities---Validity---Prosecution was launched for some ulterior motives just to create harassment for persons involved therein---Prosecution was not equipped with any material in order to involve accused or other persons in offences punishable under Ss. 371-A & 371-B, P.P.C.---When court was convinced that from very inception, prosecution was started with malice, then there was no justification to wait for Trial Court to pass any order under S. 265-K, Cr.P.C.---High Court quashed F.I.R. and proceedings pending on the basis of such F.I.R. before Trial Court---Constitutional petition was allowed in circumstances.
: 2014 YLR 1462 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
Side Appellant : Mst. ANSA KANWAL
Side Opponent : State
S. 497(2)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 371-A & 371-B---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 38---Selling person for purposes of prostitution etc., buying person for purposes of prostitution etc.---Bail, grant of---Further inquiry---Confession before police, admissibility of---Allegation against accused-female was that she ran a brothel and offered woman against money for prostitution---Accused and co-accused females were arrested from their vehicle by the police on the suspicion that they were involved in the business of selling and buying women for prostitution--Mere presence of women in a vehicle or place with men, could not be termed to be an offence unless they were found to be in a situation or position which turned such legal and lawful thing into an illegality or an offence---Prosecution had no evidence except alleged self-implicating words of accused to the effect that she offered women for prostitution---Such words were an alleged confession before police, which was not admissible under law---Investigating officer did not record statement of any person of the locality, where alleged brothel was being run by the accused---Accused and co-accused persons were females and they were no more required for further investigation---Case was one of further probe---Accused and co-accused females were released on bail accordingly.
: 2014 YLR 695 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
Side Appellant : SARFRAZ AHMED
Side Opponent : State
S. 497(2)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.371-A & 496-A---Selling person for purposes of prostitution etc., enticing or taking away or detaining with criminal intent a woman---Bail, grant of---Further inquiry---Non-association of private witnesses---Factum of prostitution not established---Contradiction between F.I.R. and newspaper clippings regarding the incident---Effect---Police arrested accused, who was driver of a vehicle which was being allegedly used to traffic women for purposes of prostitution---Police also arrested co-accused persons from the car and recovered the alleged abductee, whose hands and mouth were tied---Alleged abductee implicated accused for the offence in her statement under S. 164, Cr.P.C.---Police papers and F.I.R. revealed only general allegations against accused to the effect that he was driving the car, wherein alleged abductee was also present---Questions as to who had kidnapped the alleged abductee and tied her hands and mouth were not clear---Fact that alleged abductee was kidnapped from one city without any weapons and was brought to another city (by road) without being checked, was not understandable--Alleged abductee made a statement under S.164, Cr.P.C. to the effect that before their arrest accused and co-accused persons left her alone at a house and went to sell another girl---Surprisingly alleged abductee did not try to escape or run from the said house and kept waiting for accused and co-accused persons to return---Implication of accused in the offence merely on basis of statement of alleged abductee under S. 164, Cr.P.C. was not sufficient, and besides such statement was recorded in absence of accused---Accused and co-accused were arrested on basis of spy information, but police party made no efforts to obtain services of independent witnesses despite presence of shops and hotels in the area---Personal search of a co-accused lady at the spot was allegedly done by a passerby woman, but surprisingly neither name of said woman was disclosed in the F.I.R. nor she had been made a witness of arrest and recovery---Alleged abductee was neither recovered from a brothel house nor from any person, which indicated that she was being used for purpose of prostitution---Evidence did not show that alleged abductee was produced before any doctor to ascertain whether she was used for prostitution or not---Newspaper clippings available on record stated that accused and co-accused were arrested during a raid at a house, whereas in the F.I.R. arrest was made on a road---Case was one of further inquiry---Accused was released on bail accordingly.
2012 PCrLJ 638 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : GHULAM QADIR FARAZ alias BABAR
Side Opponent : STATION HOUSE OFFICER, POLICE STATION SADDAR KAMOKE
Ss.371-A & 37I-B---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 103---Constitution of Pakistan, Art.199---Selling and buying person for purposes of prostitution---Constitutional petition for quashing of proceedings---Place where raid was conducted by the Police on spy information, was not public place, but was owned and in the possession of a private individual---Application of Ss.371-A & 371-B, P.P.C.---Scope---Neither search warrants were obtained by the Police, nor any effort was made by the Police in that behalf---No respectable from the locality was associated in the impugned raid proceedings---Alleged police raid, in such a situation, could not be termed any better than an "intrusion ", which was an act prohibited by the Constitution, Law and the Holy Quran---Legislators in their wisdom, having regard to the existing norms of the society, were conscious of the fact that if cases under such offences were permitted to be registered on spy information or on the complaints lodged by anonymous persons, such practice would have encouraged false reports involving innocent men or women for ill designs---Story as narrated in the F.I.R. seemed to be illogical, irrational. and implausible, as nobody could possibly run a brothel house in the residential area---Police Officials by not obtaining search warrants for raiding the places in question, had committed glaring illegality in not following the mandatory provision of S.103, Cr.P.C. and in circumstances had violated Art.14 of the Constitution---Police functionaries, could not be permitted to flout the provisions of law, which otherwise, would amount to derailing the entire judicial system---Provision of Ss. 371-A & 371-B, P.P.C. only apply to persons who sell or purchase any person with the intent that such person would be used for the purpose of prostitution or illicit intercourse---In the present case no material was available against accused to substantiate the commission of such offence---Non-observance of legal requirements by the Police, not only had given a strong impression about the mala fides of the Police, but it was also indicative of the fact that all was done by the concerned Police Officials in extreme haste, to cover up and shield the wrong, which they had done to the petitioner/accused person---Continuation of investigation, prosecution or the trial, in circumstances would amount to sheer abuse of process of law, which would not be regarded in meeting the ends of justice---F.I.R. registered against accused and all proceedings, thereunder, were ordered to be quashed, in circumstances.
2011 YLR 1564 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : MUHAMMAD RAMZAN
Side Opponent : State
S. 497---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.371-A & 371-B---Selling person for purposes of prostitution etc. and buying person for purposes of prostitution etc.---Bail, grant of---Police raided the house after obtaining search warrants, but search warrants were not issued in a prescribed form after fulfilling the necessary conditions---Short order of the Magistrate, did not show that what material of any sort was before him to make him believe that he must issue the warrants---No evidence was available to the effect that accused was committing zina with female/co-accused---No evidence was on record showing that accused paid Rs.500 to the woman accused for the purpose of zina---No independent witness from the locality was associated in the raid as well during the recovery of Rs.500 from the possession of woman/co-accused---Statement of woman/co-accused could not be used against the accused---Police after investigation had submitted challan before competent court; and the trial had not started---Accused was admitted to bail, in circumstances.
: 2010 YLR 697 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
Side Appellant : State
Side Opponent : MUHAMMAD RIAZ
S. 497(2)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.371-A & 498---Selling person for the purpose of prostitution and enticing a married woman---Bail, grant of---Further inquiry---Main contention of the counsel for accused was that though the name of accused had been mentioned as one of the persons who enticed the complaint on the pretext of marriage, but no specific role had been assigned to him---From the provisions of S.371-A, P.P.C., it was clear that said provision only would apply to persons who sell any person with the intent that such person would be used for the purpose of prostitution or illicit intercourse---F.I.R., statement of alleged victim and other documents on record had not alleged that the complainant was intended to be sold to any prostitute or to any person who intended to use her for the purpose of prostitution or intercourse---From the statement of victim it did not transpire that she was sold to a prostitute or to person who intended to use her as a prostitute---Further inquiry was needed to connect accused with the charges and allegation under S.371-A, P.P.C.---Tentatively the prosecution had not made out a case which could be assumed to fall under S.371-A, P.P.C.---Maximum sentence provided under S.498, P.P.C. for inducing away married woman with intention to illicit intercourse, was two years which did not fall under prohibitory clause of S.497, Cr.P.C.---Accused, in circumstances was entitled to grant of bail.
: 2009 PCrLJ 1273 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : GHAZANFAR ABBAS
Side Opponent : State
S. 497(2)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.371-A & 371-B---Bail, grant of---Further inquiry---Sufficient material against accused was not available to substantiate the commission of the offence---No eye-witness was available before conducting the raid---No search warrant had been obtained before raiding the house of accused---Complete violation of Ss.103 & 105, Cr.P.C. in the case---Mala fide urged on behalf of accused that he had lodged a complaint against the complainant Police Officer who was also Investigating Officer of the case and that case was pending, to some extent was substantiated which made the case of accused doubtful---Mala fide involvement of accused in the case, therefore, could not be ruled out, in circumstances, which had made the case of accused as that of further inquiry---Complainant and Investigating Officer being the same person was not approved, and in such-like cases the bail had usually been granted---Accused was residing with his whole family, wife, grown up daughters and sons and in such circumstances, the business of brothel could not be imagined in the presence of children and wife---Co-accused having been allowed bail, accused was also entitled for the grant of bail---Accused was admitted to bail, in circumstances.
: : 2009 PCrLJ 744 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : NADEEM alias PUPU
Side Opponent : State
Ss. 497 & 105---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.371-A/371-B---Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order (4 of 1979), Art.22---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.14---Bail, grant of---Story narrated in the F.I.R. seemed illogical, irrational and implausible, as nobody could possibly run a brothel house in a thickly-populated residential area---Police officials had not obtained search warrants for raiding the residential house and committed a glaring illegality in not following the mandatory provisions of law under S.105, Cr.P.C. and Art.22 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979, and thus, violated Art.14 of the Constitution, which guaranteed privacy of the house---Islam had also attached great sanctity to residential house and prohibited its violation in any manner whatsoever---Even medical examination of the apprehended couple was not conducted to know the commission of Zina---Offences aimed against the accused did not seem to have been made out against him and his case needed further probe into his guilt---Accused was admitted to bail in circumstances.:
2009 YLR 60 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : SHAFQAT ALI
Side Opponent : State
S. 497(2)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 371-A & 371-B---Bail, grant of---Further inquiry---Section 371-A or 371-B, P.P.C. was applicable when the person was found in buying and selling a person for the purpose of prostitution etc.---None of accused persons was found indulging in such buying and selling; it was a case of further inquiry against accused persons within the meaning of S.497(2) of Cr.P.C.--Accused were admitted to bail, in circumstances
2009 MLD 1422 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : ARSHAD HUSSAIN ABBASI
Side Opponent : State
S. 497(2)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.371-A/B---Bail, grant of---Further inquiry---Allegation against accused was that he was found present with a woman in an objectionable position, when the raid was conducted by the police---Said woman made statement before the Magistrate under S.164, Cr.P.C. and had stated that neither accused had sexual intercourse with her nor she was sold by anyone---Involvement of accused and applicability of S.371-A/B, P.P.C. required further determination, which would be done by the Trial Court after recording the evidence---Accused was literate person and had no criminal record---Accused who was behind the bars was no more required for further investigation; his further detention would not serve any useful purpose---Accused was admitted to bail, in circumstances2008 PCrLJ 856 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE
Side Opponent : State
S. 497---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.371-A & 371-B---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art.38---Bail, grant of---Accused though was nominated in the F.I.R. yet no evidence was available on record to show his involvement in the prostitution business---Whole F.I.R. was based on the confessional statements of the accused made before a Police Officer, which were not admissible in evidence in view of Art.38 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984---Accused was neither apprehended performing any sexual act, nor any money was recovered from him---No independent evidence was available to connect the accused with the alleged offence---Mala fide of police was undoubtedly proved, as they had deliberately shown the arrest of all the accused outside the relevant premises and recovery of transacted money of the illegal business, which was always done inside the house---Case against accused needed further inquiry into his guilt and he was admitted to bail in circumstances.
0 Comments