RAJA MUHAMMAD KHURSHID, J.- A case under Sections 13/14, Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood), Ordinance, 1979, is registered against the petitioner and others vide FIR No. 247, dated 1.9.1997 at Police Station, Margallah, Islamabad for letting 6 girls for the purpose of prostitution.
2. According to FIR one Mst. Ghazala indulged in supplying women for prostitution through person named Naveed Khan. A decoy customer was sent to the house of aforesaid Ghazala for booking of 6 girls for prostitution. The transaction was settled and girls were agreed to be supplied through Naveed Khan with the help of the present petitioners, who were the drivers of cars in which 6 girls were transported^ to the place of prostitution. Upon a raid those 6 girls were arrested alongwith other three persons, which included present petitioners. All the 6 girls bvlng victim were admitted to bail by this Court vide order dated 2.10.1997.
3. The Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that both the petitioners were drivers of the vehicles in which the aforesaid girls were transported for dropping them at the place of prostitution. Out of them Taimur Abbasi petitioner No. 1 was a professional driver working with Capital Rentals dealing in the business of 'Rent a Car' at Islamabad. The aforesaid driver was performing duty with one Salim Andrews for the last 4 months. The aforesaid Salim Andrews is residing in Punjab House and since petitioner No. 1 was on duty with him, therefore, he had no knowledge about the .Business of prostitution. The other petitioner is the driver in Punjab House and as such had no knowledge of such shameful business; that tie had been working with the aforesaid Salim Andrews at Punjab House and on the fateful day was accompanying petitioner No. 1. In view of the above facts, it is submitted that real culprits were Mst. Ghazala and her associates namely Naveed Khan, and Salim Andrews. They are allegedly still at large but the petitioners have been roped in being poor car drivers. It is submitted that since they had nothing to do with the action of letting out aforesaid girls, for prostitution, therefore, they were entitled to bail.
4. The learned counsel for the State has, however, opposed the bail petition on the ground that a gang was operating to trap innocent girls and then to let them out for prostitution. Admittedly the petitioners were named in the FIR and a specific role was attributed to them for transporting the girls afore mentioned to a brothal and as such they were a link in the chain and their vicarious liability could not allegedly be distinguished at this stage. As such it was prayed that they have no case for bail.
5. I have considered ttye foregoing submissions and without entering into the merits of the case, it appeals from the perusal of record that both the petitioners were closely associated in transporting the girls afore-mentioned at the instance of Mst. Ghazala and Naveed Khan in the cars driven by them. They were associated with aforesaid Mst. Ghazala, Naveed Khan and Salim Andrews for sometime and as such it cannot be said that they were oblivious of their nefarious activities as they have been engaged to transport the girls from the house of Mst. Ghazala to the place of prostitution. They have been actively associated with the crime according to the FIR and the evidence so far collected by the police. The petitioners have no case for bail at this stage. Their bail petition is accordingly dismissed.