Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
Criminal Miscellaneous No. 843/B of 1986, decided on 12th April, 1986.
‑‑‑S. 497‑‑Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979), S. 10/13/14/18‑‑Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order (4 of 1979), Art. ;3/4‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑Raid conducted in hotel‑‑No witness from public made to join raid‑‑Some of accused rounded up in same raid, admitted to bail by Sessions Judge‑‑Case of accused at par with other accused persons‑‑Police was not sure as to what was precisely their case which called for further inquiry‑‑Bail granted in circumstances.
Ahmad Gul Khan for Petitioner.
Najam‑uz‑Zaman, Asstt.A.‑G. for the State.
Date of hearing: 12th April, 1986.
Secret information was passed on to the police of nefarious activities in Hotel Faletti's, Lahore. On the night between 13/14th of March, 1986, Nasarullah Khan. Magistrate 1st Class, Lahore, alongwith Marawwat Ali Shah. A.S.P., SHOs. Police Stations, Qila Gujjar Singh, Civil Lines and Race Course an A.S.I. and 4 Foot Constables conducted raid at the said hotel.
2. Number of persons, men and women, were arrested. They were accused of offences under Articles 10, 13, 14 and 18 of Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979. Some of them were also hauled up under Articles 3 and 4 of Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979.
3. Azmatullah S.H.O. Police Station Qila Gujjar Singh drafted the necessary complaints and forwarded the same to the Police Station, Qila Gujjar Singh, Lahore. On the basis of that eight separate F.I.Rs. were recorded at the aforesaid Police Station.
4. After the accused had been arrested, 21 bail applications were moved. All those were decided by one order, dated 24‑3‑1986 by an Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore. Some of the accused were bailed out whereas the bail application of Mst. Nasreen, Mst. Nausheen, Mst. Surrayia, Muhammad Iqbal, Ayyaz Hafeez, Mst. Naz, Mst. Nadia, Mst. Razia and Mst. Farhat were dismissed. Eight separate bail applications in this case are before me.
I first take up the case of Mst. Nasreen petitioner in this petition and Muhammad Iqbal petitioner in Criminal Miscellaneous 854‑B/86. There is one F.I.R. against these two persons.
The allegation against Mst. Nasreen is that when the raiding party knocked at the door of Room No. 55, she was found semi‑naked lying on a bed alongwith a person who too was half‑naked. On the asking of the police she told them that she had been brought to the hotel through Anwar Baig, the hotel Booking Clerk, for prostitution.
The allegation against Muhammad Iqbal is that he brought Nasreen to the hotel for the aforesaid purpose. When the door of the room was opened, he was found to have drunk.
Learned counsel for the petitioners in both the aforesaid petitions submitted that the allegations against the two petitioners were false. They further submitted that the raiding party consisted of the police officials and the Magistrate. No private person was made to join the raid.
It is further argued that once the raiding party is organised and the raid is carried out then it becomes a matter of prestige for the raiding party to make the raid successful.
Learned counsel submitted that it is not expected from a person to open the door at once when a semi‑naked woman is lying in the bed.
The learned A.A.‑G. opposed the bail on the ground that there were serious allegations against the petitioners. The offences fell within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. The petitioners indulged in immoral activities. They were not good citizens.
There appears to be good deal of force in the contention of the learned counsel that although the raid was carried out in a hotel yet nobody from public was made to join the raid. The fact that number of articles of the Hudood Ordinance have been applied shows that the police was not sure upto the last minute as to what was their precise case.
I find that the Additional Sessions Judge admitted some of the accused to bail on the basis of false implication. Counsel argued that case of the petitioners is at par with them.
After taking all the relevant facts into consideration, I am of the view that the case of the petitioners calls for further inquiry. I, therefore, admit them to bail in the sum of Rs.10,000 (Rupees ten thousand), each, with one surety each, in the like amount to the satisfaction of the A.C., City, Lahore.
S.A Bail granted.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer