Asif Khan, the petitioner, by submitting this application, has sought concession of pre-arrest bail in the case F.I.R No, 857/08, dated 17-8-2008, registered at P.S. Gulberg, Lahore, in respect of the offences under Section 371-A and 371-B, P.P.C.
2. Shorn of unnecessary details the prosecution's story, as unfurled in the F.I.R, lodged at the instance of Abdul Rehman, Sub-Inspector, Police Station Gulberg, Lahore is that on receiving a tip off, through a wireless call, a police party headed by the complainant conducted a raid in Buzz Cafe situated in 22-K,Sir Syed Road, Gulberg, Lahore and found two girls dancing in semi-naked condition, whereas about a dozen of people/co-accused, were watching the said semi-nude dance and showering the dancing girls with currency notes of different denomination. The said participants were reportedly behaving indecently. It was further alleged by the complainant that Muhammad Arshad, Ali Noor and Riaz, co-accused were providing the necessary material to all the members of the orgy. All the said accused, including the dancing girls, were apprehended by the police at the spot. According to the complainant, the dancing girls were provided for immoral purposes by the petitioner, who is the owner of the said cabaret, after receiving consideration at the rate of Rs,6000/- and Rs,2000/- per head, respectively, from the customers. According to the complainant, the petitioner and Ijaz Mughal, co-accused-the supplier of the said girls-on seeing the raiding party and by taking the advantage of darkness, succeeded in decamping from the scene, however, an amount of Rs,6200/-, showered upon the dancing girls by the customers, was taken into possession by the raiding party.
3. The petitioner applied for pre-arrest bail, which, however, was dismissed by the learned Addl.
Sessions Judge, Lahore vide an order dated 3-12-2008, hence this petition.
4. In support of this petition learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the prosecution's story is nothing but a cooked book; that, admittedly, nobody was found committing sexual intercourse/ activities, therefore, neither an offence under Section 371-A, P.P.0 nor that of Section 371-B, P.P.C. is attracted to the facts and circumstances of this case; that the petitioner, who, admittedly, is owner of the Buzz Cafe, has been involved in this case by the complainant to blackmail him' for extracting some money; that the petitioner's name and honour has been sullied by the police malafidely; that all the co-accused of the petitioner have already been released on bail by the learned trial Court and that from the contents of the F.I.R, at the most, offence under Section 294, P.P.0 is made out against the petitioner, which is a bailable offence. In order to shore up his arguments, the learned counsel has placed reliance on the cases of Zahid Hussain and others v. The State (2008 M LD 722), Faiz Ullah v. The State (2008 PCr.LJ 693) and Alam Chand alias Aloomal and 2 others v. Jamil Ahmad and another (2008 SCM R 980).
5. Conversely, learned D.P.G has opposed the bail application, contending that the complainant had no enmity, whatsoever, with the petitioner to falsely implicate him; that the fact that scores of people along with dancing girls were apprehended by the police, apart from the recovery of the showered amount from the dancing girls, supports the prosecution's allegation and that the petitioner, being the owner of the cafe, which at the time of occurrence was being used as cabaret, orchestrated the orgy to fleece the money from his customers and that the petitioner, being the prime perpetrator of running immoral activities is not entitled to the extraordinary relief of pre- arrest bail.
6. After giving an ardent hearing to the respective learned counsel for the parties and going through the record, I have straightaway noticed that, admittedly, the petitioner was not apprehended at the time of alleged raid. The allegation of sidling out of the petitioner from the Cafe in the face of a heavy contingent of the police requires further enquiry. Further, the police officer, in attendance, has failed to refer to any evidence to show that the dancing girls were purchased, sold or hired by the petitioner for the purposes of prostitution or for any unlawful or immoral purpose. Therefore, the question of applicability of offences under Section 371-A, and 371- B, P.P.0 to the facts and circumstances of this case, also requires further probe in terms of Section 497 (2), Cr.P.C. Moreover, all the co-accused, who were apprehended at the spot, have already been allowed bail by the learned trial Court vide order dated 20-12-2008. Admittedly, nothing is to be recovered from the petitioner, so, no useful purpose would be served by handing over his physical custody to the police on any technical ground, because after his arrest, he would be allowed a bail on the ground that similarly placed other accused are already on bail.
7. Consequently, while relying on the case of Muhammad Ramzan v. Zafar Ullah and another (1986 SCM R 1380) and the case-law cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the application in hand is accepted and the ad-interim pre-arrest bail granted in favour of the petitioner is hereby confirmed, subject to his furnishing fresh bail bonds in a sum of Rs, 1,00,000/- (rupees one hundred thousand) with one surety, in the like amount, to the satisfaction of Deputy Registrar (Judl.) of this Court.