Find a Lawyer

Criminal, Miscellaneous No. 3093/B of 1984, decided on 24th November, 1984.

Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979)--

---S. 10/13/18--Brothel house--Accused allegedly running brothel house--Other two accused women apprehended during raid bailed out- Petitioner in judicial lock-up for 4i months---Bail granted.

Yahya Saleem for Petitioner.

Ashraf Khan for the State.

Date of hearing: 24th November, 1984.

The petitioner is involved in a case registered against her and two others under the provisions of section 10/13/18 of Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance VII of 1979. The said case was registered, vide F.I.R. No. 167, dated 11-7-1984 by the Police Station, Saddar Faisalabad. The allegation against the petitioner is that she is running brothel house and provides women for the commission of Zina.

Allegedly on 11-7-1984 the petitioner was seen receiving Rs. 300 Javaid Iqbal and Muhammad Rafi as a consideration for making one Surraya Begum and Kulsoom Begum available for Zina by the aforesaid Javaid Iqbal and Muhammad Rafi. A raid was conducted and two women, namely, Surraya Begum and Kulsoom Begum were taken into custody. It may be stated here that both of these women are mother and daughter. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the case is false and in fact Zina had not been committed. The Investigating Office informed me that both these women were not related to the petitioner and at least with one of them the Zina had been committed. The vaginal swabs taken proved that they were stained with semen. On the other hand the learned counsel stated that such discovery of semen was result of the commission of sexual intercourse by the husband of the aforesaid women and not by Javaid Iqbal sad Muhammad Rafi. According to the learned counsel, such fact was substantiated by the husband of the said women.

3. The learned counsel further contended that since both the aforesaid women have already been released on bail, therefore, the petitioner is also entitled to the grant of bail, because she is in judicial lock-up for the last 4) months. Considering entire case and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I am of the view that the petitioner is entitled to the grant of bail. Accordingly, I hereby admit the petitioner to bail provided she furnishes security in the sun of Rs. 10,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Assistant Commissioner, Faisalabad.

A.A. Bail allowed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.