' This order will also dispose of Criminal Miscellaneous No,1509-B of 1999, which was filed by the petitioner after filing of the present bail petition. In the bail petition (Criminal Miscellaneous No,1509-B of 1999), it was not disclosed that present bail petition (Criminal Miscellaneous No,1445-B of 1999) has already been instituted. This suppression of fact is, sufficient to disallow the discretionary relief. However, Mehr Shaukat Ali, Advocate, who, had filed Criminal Miscellaneous No,1509-8 of 1999 has submitted that the petitioner did not inform him about the institution of Criminal Miscellaneous No,1445-B of 1999 and hence that petition was filed without any mala fide.
Anyway, the fact remains that the petitioner has moved two petitions for bail, which are pending simultaneously and are being disposed of with this single order. Earlier also the petitioner had instituted Criminal Miscellaneous No, 199-B of 1999 praying for bail but the same was dismissed for non-prosecution on 9-2-1999, by this Court.
2. I have heard the learned. Counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the State, and have also perused the record. According to the contents of F.I.R., the petitioner was running a brother house for which one of her Mohalladars namely Faiz Ahmad complainant informed the police after he had detected that some men and women were committing Zina in the house of petitioner and had made their escape good from the spot in naked condition. The occurrence was seen by the complainant and two others namely Mirza Bashir Ahmad and Pervez Ahmad. A case was accordingly registered against the petitioner and others vide F.I.R. No,554, dated 7-10-1998 under sections 10, 13, 14, Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 at Police Station, Satellite Town, Sargodha. During the investigation, it was found that the petitioner was habitual brothel runner as she was involved in two similar cases at the same Police Station vide F.I.R. No,337 of 1994 and F.I.R. No,468 of 1996 besides being involved in another case under section 506/34, P.P.C.
Vide F.I.R. No,341 of 1998.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that there is no proof that the petitioner was running a brothel house nor the police has been able to arrest those persons, who were involved in committing Zina-bil-Raza, when the complainant had reached the house of petitioner. In the absence of those offenders it could not be successfully urged that the petitioner was involved in running a brothel house.
4. Secondly it was contended that petitioner was a woman and as such her case would fall within the proviso to section 497,. Cr.P.C. And she would be entitled to bail particularly when she is the mother of young children.
5. Lastly it was contended that petitioner is a T.B. Patient and if remained in jail would suffer irreparable loss. The F.I.R. Was lodged with the delay of about 5 days which showed that the case was cooked up.
6. The learned counsel for the State opposed the bail application on the ground that delay in registration of the case had taken place because the complainant had made an application to the D.S.P. Of the Circle concerned who forwarded the same to the S.H.O., whereupon the present case was registered. As such it was alleged that the delay was immaterial in view of the above explanation.
7. Secondly it was contended that the complainant is a Mohalladar and the two witnesses, who are also residents of same locality have clearly deposed that petitioner was involved in such-like activities in the past for which some cases of similar nature were also registered against her and are pending in the Court of law; that the persons involved in the commission of Zina ran away in naked condition and could not be apprehended but the police is conducting raids for their arrest. It was therefore, submitted that offence under sections 10, 13 and 14 of Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 being punishable up to imprisonment for life, petitioner would not be entitled to bail.
8. Lastly it was submitted that there was nothing on record to show that petitioner was actually ill being afflicted by T.B.
9. I have considered the foregoing submissions and after perusal of record find that prosecution has collected enough evidence during investigation prima facie linking the petitioner for running a brothel house. This immoral activity in an Islamic Society cannot be allowed nor it should be lightly taken while considering the bail matter. There being no extenuating ground for grant of bail to the petitioner, her bail petitions are dismissed. The Investigating Officer is also directed to complete the investigation within two weeks and submit the interim or final report under section 173, Cr.P.C. To the Court concerned.