1. ' SHAHID ANWAR BAJWA, J.--- F.I.R. No.214 of 2011 was recorded at Police Statipn Kharadar, Karachi on 22- 5-2011. Complainant stated that he is resident in a locality of District Faisalabad and his sister Mehwish wife of Bilawal was kidnapped from his village by some people who brought her to Karachi. Mother of complainant had in this regard submitted an application to Police Station City Tandlianwala. Complainant stated that he received information that his kidnapped sister is under the custody of a person namely Jabbar in a house situated at Napier Road and she had been forced into prostitution. Complainant stated that he went to the said address pretending as a customer where he found his sister but he indicated to her to remain silent. Complainant then went to the Police Station and on his report police conducted raid at the said house and with the sister of complainant another girl Mehwish daughter of Zahoor Ahmed was also recovered. Apart from the owner of the.
2. House two other persons who there as customers were also arrested on the spot. The two girls stated that they had been forced into prostitution by the owner of the house who had also committed Zina with them. They also stated that .One policeman namely Nadeem usually came there for committing Zina and two other policemen Ahsan and Wahab alias Talban (second being the present applicant) also used to come there. Jabbar gave statement that he had purchased girl from one Kausar Langri.
3. ' After registration of F.I.R. Police submitted report under section 173, Cr.P.C. And stated that they had no evidence in respect of the present applicant and police constable Ahsan because both the girls had not in their statements under section 161 as well as 164, Cr.P.C. Alleged that present applicant committed any wrong whatsoever or even spoke to them. Consequently, police sought permission for releasing present applicant and Ahsan under section 169, Cr.P.C. Learned Judicial Magistrate vide order dated 16-6-2011 ordered that present applicant and Ahsan be joined as a co-accused.
4. ' Learned counsel for applicant submitted that there is no evidence against the applicant and police in its investigation had found him innocent and he is presumed to be innocent till proved guilty. Learned counsel relied upon Dr. Muhammad Aslam v. The State (1993 SCMR 2288), Shahid Ali v. The State (2006 YLR 1866), Zafar Iqbal v. The State (2002 MLD 454) and Manzoor and 4 others v. The State (PLD 1972 SC 81).
5. ' Learned A.P.-G. Submitted that although ipse dixit of police is not binding on Court, it is sufficiently proved from evidence that the present applicant used to visit house of Jabbar and same is admittedly located in an ill- reputed locality and the area and therefore speaks for itself. He submitted that it is duty of police officer to curb offences. He relied upon Ahmed Hussain alias AMI and others v. The State and others (PLD 2008 SC 110). He further submitted that no enmity has been shown or alleged between present applicant and the recovered girl to indicate as to why recovered girl had falsely implicated the present applicant. He submitted that it was an offence against society which was being carried out and the present applicant is fully complicit in the offence.
6. ' While exercising his right of reply Mr. Aman Khattak stated that applicant has not been implicated by the alleged abductees.
7. ' I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused material on record as well as case-law cited at bar.
8. ' In Dr. Muhammad Alam's case (supra) honourable Supreme Curt observed that two police investigations had opined that the petitioner was innocent and even police officer who brought case to the Supreme Court gave the same opinion. It granted bail. In Shahid Ali's case (supra) offence of Zina was alleged against petitioner but he was declared innocent by the investigating officer. Same was the position in investigation conducted by the D.S.P. Bail was granted by the Single Judge of Lahore High Court. In Zafar Iqbal's case (supra) according to F.I.R. The complainant was asleep in his house along with his family and 2 guests when 6 persons wearing masks trespassed into house. Mother of complainant saw trespassers. One of the trespassers caught hold of the mother of complainant. Her hues and cries woke up the complainant. During resistance mask of one of the trespassers slipped and mask of another was also removed. Petitioner is alleged to have given butt blows to the complainant. By that time neighbours were also alerted and trespassers ran away and while doing so they fired which resulted in serious injuries to two neighbours. High Court observed that there was no apparent motive and the two injured persons had stated that they had not seen the petitioner. Court further noticed that it was alleged in the F.I.R. That butt blows were given by Zafar Iqbal only after complainant had grappled with him and it is strange that the remaining trespassers just stood as bystanders. Police submitted discharge report and the High Court observed that opinion of police is not binding but the same could not be treated as irrelevant for the purpose of bail and the benefit of doubt. In Manzoor's case (supra) occurrence was result of a land dispute between the parties and allegation was that petitioner along with 4 persons armed with fire weapons came to disputed land, which was in possession of the complainant party and opened fire which caused death of one person while another person was injured. Police on investigation found participation of persons except Manzoor as doubtful and placed them in Column No.2 of the Challan. Bail application was dismissed by the trial Court and High Court concurred with trial Court. Supreme Court observed as under:-- "The learned Single Judge of the High Court has rejected the bail application of the petitioners mainly on the ground that the police, on its investigation, has held them to be guilty, notwithstanding that the complainant party has pronounced all of them, except Manzoor, as innocent, and that the police case, as put into the Court, has yet to be tested by evidence. We regret we cannot uphold this approach made by the learned. Single Judge. It is obviously not correct to depend on the ipse dixit of the police regarding the guilt or innocence of an accused person even in the matter of deciding the question of his bail. As repeatedly held by this Court, bail in non- bailable cases is a matter within the discretion of the Courts, which has to be exercised with due care and caution on the facts and circumstances of each case. For an offence punishable with death or transportation for life, an accused charged with the same is not to be released on bail if there are reasonable grounds for believing that he has committed such an offence. The onus is on the prosecution to disclose those reasonable grounds, and the Court has to examine the data available in the case to find out whether such reasonable grounds exist, to connect the accused person with the crime alleged against him. The Court's belief on the point has to rest on the accusations made in the report to the police, the nature and the credentials of the evidence, which the prosecution proposes to lead in the case, and all the other relevant circumstances surrounding the occurrence."
9. ' Thereafter it observed as under:-- "It is important to remember that bail is not to be withheld as a punishment. There is no legal or moral compulsion to keep people in jail merely on the allegation that they have committed offences .Punishable with death or transportation, unless reasonable grounds appear to exist to disclose their complicity. The ultimate conviction and incarceration of a guilty person can repair the wrong caused by a mistaken relief of interim bail granted to him, but no satisfactory reparation can be offered to an innocent man for his unjustified incarceration at any stage of the case albeit him acquittal in the long run. "
10. ' Honourable Supreme Court granted leave to appeal in respect of 4 co-accused but dismissed the petition for leave to appeal in case of Manzoor.
11. ' On the other hand learned Assistant Prosecutor-General relied upon Ahmed Hussain alias AMI's case (supra).
12. The factual background was that complainant stated that his brother had gone to a video shop and did not return. Culprits made telephone calls and demanded ransom. After negotiations ransom was paid. In identification parade culprits were identified by alleged abductee. Trial Court awarded sentence to death. In respect of liability of persons who subsequently joined the accused in crime. It was observed by the Supreme Court as under:-- ---The law is that if a person subsequently associates himself with the accused in the crime, he may have same liability and learned counsel has not been able to satisfy us that Ahmed Hussain petitioner was not privy to the crime. In the light of the circumstances leading to the occurrence and the subsequent events, an interference could safely be drawn that the petitioners having participated in the crime, have incurred equal responsibility of commission of the offence. "
13. ' In the present case two abductees have alleged that the present applicant along with another police personnel of the area police station used to visit regularly the house where the alleged abductees were lodged. Said house was located at Napier Road and very location of house in midst of a red light area of the city speaks something about the incident itself. Police investigation has cleared present applicant of any allegation of Zina and indeed two abductees have not levelled any such allegation on the present applicant. Therefore, declaring present applicant innocent of Zina is of no relevance. For this reason, the case-law of Dr.Muhammad Aslam and Shahid Ali (supra) relied upon by learned counsel for the present applicant are of also no relevance. Case-law of Zafar Iqbal and Manzoor relied upon are again on different footings. In Zafar Iqbal's case (supra) the injured did not identify Zafar Iqbal and giving of butt blows was considered doubtful by the Court. Similarly in case of Manzoor 4 co-accused had been declared innocent by the police and there were inconsistency in the version of complainant and in statement of witnesses. Case-law relied upon by the learned counsel for applicant is, therefore, clearly distinguishable. In Ahmed Hussain's case (supra) a very important principle has been laid down and that principle is, in the word A of Supreme Court if a person subsequently joins in crime he is to be burdened with the same liability.
14. ' In the present case two girls were abducted, brought to' Karachi, lodged in a house in an ill-reputed locality and pressed into prostitution. Some police personnel are alleged to have committed Zina and present applicant was alleged to be regular visitor. As to why present applicant regularly visited that place is an important aspect. It is duty of police to protect the citizen and to prevent commission of crime. Mere presence of a police person at a particular place may at the one hand act as a deterrent for those who wish to or intend to commit a crime and may on the other hand be seen in the circumstances as protection being provided by the police to the criminals.
15. The applicant being a police personnel who should have open eyes and vigilant ear, he visited a place in an ill- reputed locality where abductees were lodged and pressed into prostitution.
16. ' Applicant is certainly, therefore, not entitled to discretionary relief of bail. Consequently, this bail application is dismissed.