Through the instant Crl. Misc. petitioner (Ghulam Qamar) has prayed for pre-arrest bail in FIR No. 119, dated 15.02.2022, under sections 371-A & 371-B, PPC, Police Station Shalimar , Islamabad.
2. According to the allegations set-forth in the FIR,on the basis of spy information regarding running of a brothel by the petitioner, on 15.02.2022 at about 10:30 p.m., a police contingent of Police Station Shalimar, Islamabad, conducted a raid at Kaneeza Massage Centre, F-10 Markaz, Islamabad where four ladies namely Sumera Bibi, Razia Bibi, Shahida Bibi and Hifsa Bibi (co-accused) were found present, who disclosed about the petitioner qua his involvement in prostitution business.
3. Learned counsel argued that petitioner has falsely been involved in this case; that no incriminating material is available on record; that co-accused have already been released on bail and that nothing is to be recovered from the petitioner , therefore, he is entitled to the concession of pre-arrest bail.
4. On the other hand, learned State Counsel submitted that the offence alleged falls within the ambit of prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.P.C; that no malice or malafide on the part of police has been alleged; that investigation is yet to be completed and that it is an offence against the society , therefore, petitio ner is not entitled to pre-arrest bail.
5. Heard, record examined.
6. As per the spirit of the alleged offences when a female is sold, let for hire, or otherwise disposed of to a prostitute or to any person who keeps or manages a brothel, the person so disposing of such female shall, until the contrary is proved, be presumed to have disposed of her with the intent that she shall be used for the purpose of prostitution, while any prostitute or any person keeping or managing a brothel, who buys, hires or otherwise obtains possession of a female shall, until the contrary is proved, be presumed to have obtained possession of such female with the intent that she shall be used for the purpose of prostitution.
7. In the present case, petitioner is accused of managing a brothel for hiring, selling or disposing of females for the purpose of prostitution. The females, who were arrested from the spot named the petitioner to be involved in such nefarious activities. Besides, the statements of official witnesses are in unison on the point of search and apprehension of females/co-accused, therefore, sufficient incriminating material is available against the petitioner , who allegedly retains a commanding role.
8. It is also noticed that after obtaining ad-interim pre- arrest bail from the court of 1st instance, petitioner avoided to join investigation despite specific direction and it was so noted by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge in its order dated 15.3.2022. Even before this Court, he adopted the same course and joined the investigation only yesterday (31.03.2022) as intimated by State Coun sel and corroborated by the Investigating Officer. Record further divulges that the instant FIR stood registered on 15.2.2022, petitioner filed first pre-arrest bail petition after ten days on 26-2- 2022 and had been on ad interim pre arrest bail for more than fortnight period but did not join the investigation. He also enjoyed the same concession from this Court for more than ten days but did not join the investigation till the last day .
Thus, petitioner despite availing remedy of ad interim bail for more than one month, did not join investigation which fact, itself debars him for seeking extra ordinary concession of pre arrest bail which is meant to save innocent from false implication.
9. An accused in a criminal case could not be granted bail before arrest to subvert or undermine investigative procedures and that malafide, manifestly intriguing upon the intended arrest was the only justification to suspend or divert the usual course of law, a step which was most extraordinary by all means as laid down by the Hon'ble apex Court in the case of "Kamran Attaullah and another v . The State " (2021 SCMR 449 ).
10. The remedy of pre arrest bail is most extra ordinary in nature, to be extended by diverting usual course of law for the sole purpose of protecting reputation and honour of an innocent citizen being hounded through abuse of process of law for purposes sinister and oblique. Such protection is based upon equity and could not be extended in every run of the mill criminal case prima facie founded upon incriminatory evidence, warranting custody for investigative purposes. Reliance is placed upon case of "Maqbool Ahmed Mahessar and others v. National Accountability Bureau (NAB) through Chairman and others" (2021 SCMR 1166). In the case of "Muhammad Zahid Aslam and another v. The State and another" (2021 SCMR 554), it has been held that "grant of pre-arrest bail in a cognizable criminal case was an extraordinary remedy , cautiously granted to protect dignity and honour of a citizen, manifestly found being harassed or hounded through process of law actuated by motives, oblique and sinister , while taking into account the possible set back, likely to be endured by the prosecution during investigative process ."
11. The rule of consistency ,as argued, is not applicable to the case of petitioner due to having commanding role unlike co accused who, otherwise, allowed post-arrest bail, parameters of which are quite distinct than that of pre arrest bail.
12. Furthermore, investigation is yet to be completed for which purpose, the custody of the petitioner is essential.
The offence alleged not only falls within the ambit of prohibitory clause of Sectio n 497 Cr.P.C but is an offence against the society which cannot be taken lightly .
13. In view of above tentative assessment, sufficient incriminating material is available on record which, prima connects the petitioner with the commission of alleged offence, and in absence of any ill will or malafide on the part of prosecution, he is not entitled to extra ordinary discretion of pre-arrest bail. Consequently , the bail petition is dismissed . Ad-interim pre-arrest bail already granted to the petitioner vide order dated 18.03.2022 is recalled.