' SYED SAJJAD HUSSAIN SHAH, J.--- Petitioner Faiz Ullah through the instant petition has sought post-arrest bail in a case F.I.R. No,133, dated 29-6-2007 under section 371-A/B, P.P.C. (Protection of Women Act, 2006) registered with Police Station Tarnol.
2. The prosecution case as has arisen out of the contents of F.I.R. Is that on receipt of complaints from public that one Muhammad Ramzan has rented out his house situated in Dhoke Maliayaran, Islamabad to Mst. Zaitoon Bibi alias Shaheen, and she has established a brothel house therein, and was running the same. In view of the above said public complaints, the local police obtained search warrant from the concerned Illaqa Magistrate and on 29-6-2007, a raid was conducted at the above house and when they entered the same, it was found that in one room, Arshad Abbasi and one Mst. Sabiha Bibi were found present in objectionable posture. In the second room, Muhammad Shafique, Aurangzeb and the present petitioner were present. All of them were apprehended. Mst. Shaheen Bibi was not present there by that time. The petitioner applied for his post-arrest bail before the Illaqa Magistrate as well as before the Court of Session which were dismissed. Hence, this petition.
3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case and according to him, his mere presence at the spot does not connect him with the offence. Further submits that the abode wherefrom the petitioner was arrested no woman was found by the raiding party whereas in another room some persons were found in objectionable condition, therefore, the case of the petitioner calls for further inquiry into his guilt. Lastly submits that he is behind the bars and no more required for further investigation.
4. Conversely, learned A.A.-G. Has opposed the instant petition and submits that a brothel house was being run by one Mst. Zaitoon who was found present in the house at the time of raid. At that time some persons were committing intercourse with each other and one of his co-accused has mentioned in her statement that it was the petitioner who brought the other male persons in the said house, therefore, the petitioner is involved in an immoral business of selling and purchasing of the women. Further adds that there is sufficient material with the prosecution to connect the petitioner with the offence which falls under the prohibitory clause.
5. Arguments heard. Record perused.
6. Although the petitioner is nominated in the F.I.R. But admittedly he was present in another room in which no woman was present and mere his presence in the house in which Zina was being committed does not connect him with the offence. Learned A.A.-G. Is unable to refer any material through which it could be demonstrated that the petitioner has ever brought any male or female for said purposes in the said house. The question as to whether the petitioner in fact is involved in the said crime, itself requires further determination which of course would be determined by the trial Court after recording the evidence. Prima facie, there is no incriminating material with the prosecution to connect the petitioner with the offence. The petitioner has no criminal history. He is behind the bars and no more required for further investigation. His further detention would not serve any useful purpose.
7. For what has been discussed above, this petition is allowed and the petitioner is admitted to bail, subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs,1,00,000 (Rupees one lac) with two local sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.