1. ' The present applicants/accused have filed this application for bail in F.I.R. No,47 of 2001 registered at Police Station, Frere on 18-3-2001 under sections 13, 14 and 18 of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood)
2. Ordinance, 1979. The bail plea was moved on behalf of the applicants along with other co-accused before the trial Court, but the same was dismissed vide common order, dated 3-4-2001. Hence, this application.
3. ' The F.I.R. In the case reads as under:--- "I, S.H.O./Inspector Irshad Ahmed Sohail while on duty at Police Station, Frere, received a spy information that accused Shahbaz Bajwa, General Manager of Western Plaza Hotel, Dawoodpota Road, Karachi Cann., Hotel Administration, Duty Manager and with connivance of owners Naeem and others of the Hotel have been engaged in providing Russian as well as Pakistani women to the customers for the purpose of sexual intercourse. And .So many couples are available in different rooms in objectionable condition. After getting this information I, along with police staff including lady constable in presence of S1?M, Civil Lines and under supervision of D.S.P., Frere in presence of witness Mussawar Warsi son of Sharafat Hussain, A.S.I. Liaquat Ali at about 00-15 hours conducted raid at the said hotel. And inside the Hotel had checked the different rooms, the details of those rooms is given below: And from inside room the accused lady accused and lady suppliers were arrested from the rooms in objectionable condition. They were present in the rooms with preparation to commit sexual intercourse. At the time of arrest the following things, bottles of liquor and unlicensed weapons were recovered by the police. The General Manager Shahbaz Bajwa son of Muhammad Hussain was present in Room No,707 with supplier lady Miss. Farida d/o Ali and inside room one empty bottle of white Whisky and one China pistol of .30 bore No,25358 loaded with 12 cartridges without licence wrapped on his back was recovered, (2) Muhammad Shahid son of G.M. Chand in Room No,? With Nazakat d/o Bai Ram, (3) Eslon Razza son of Dost Mashi was present in objectionable condition, (4) Shahzad Gul son of Ishaque, (5) Maratab Ali son of Shoukat All was present in the lobby of office with Mst. Naila, Farida d/o Ibrahim, (6) Sikandar All son of Noor Muhammad, (7) Wajid Ali son of Farzand Ali was present in Room No,607 with Mst. Sabafat d/o Waseem. (8) Muhammad Sadiq Abbasi son of All Bahadur Abbasi, (9) Muhammad Aman son of Muhammad Irfan, (10) Sajid Ali son of Shoukat, who under the supervision of management arranged the meetings of couples, (11) Muhammad Shahid son of Arshad was present in Room No,106 with Miss Arrina d/o Alexander in half-naked condition, (12) Izaharul Hague son of Muhammad Latif was present in Room No,1006 with Miss Nazakat d/o Esmith in half-naked condition on bed, (13) Muhammad Tahir son of Muhammad Arshad was present in Room No,1006 with Beerey Huwa d/o Sargam in half-naked condition, (14) Muhammad Yamin son of Muhammad Sharif was present in Room No,1202 with Miss Kamala d/o Kaimoor in naked condition on bed, (15)
4. Rais Ahmed son of Sarwer was present in Room No,1001 with Miss Jaya Ahmed d/o Ahmed in objectionable condition on bed, (16) Rana Saleem son of Abdul Aziz was present in Room No,507,
(17) Kashif Akram son of Muhammad Akram was present in room with Miss Amala d/o Gillani, Mst.
5. Victoria d/o Sangatullah and Mst. Tahira d/o Arif in naked condition, (18) Amir Ahmed son of Mukhtiar Ahmed, (19) Zeeshan Asif son of Muhammad Asif was present near Room No,703 with Mst.
6. Lala d/o Niab, Mst. Choonli d/o Agha in half-naked condition with intention to commit sexual intercourse, (20) Riaz Gul son of Zia Gul, (21) Aqeel son of Naushrwan, (22) Adil son of Naushrawan was present in Room No,602 with Mst. Soobdia d/o Amir Karam, Mst. Rehana d/o Shafgat and Mst.
7. Zarifa d/o Farz Ali with intention to commit sexual intercourse, (23) Ghulam Shabbir son of Mehmood All was present in Room No,1204 with Mst. Wall Mehmoodwan alias Jolla d/o Nogan Nawana, Mst. Liana d/o Wisra, Mst. Dilshad d/o Mehrab and Mst. Yasmin d/o Hosma Bi in naked condition with intention to commit sexual intercourse. The aforesaid man was lying on the bed and Mst. Zarifa d/o Parwar Zang, Mst. Walia d/o Cannanwa and Mst. Jay Kharwa w/o Tahir at the time of raid in half-naked condition were going from different rooms towards their rooms, who had gone to different rooms for sexual intercourse. At the time of arrest from the aforesaid accused shown at Sr. No,18 Muhammad Amir one sealed bottle of one point along with box was recovered. From Shahid at Sr. No,2 one point of white whisky was recovered. From accused Rana Saleem on QDL, white whisky was recovered from his room. From accused Kashif Akram one bottle of QDL white whisky was recovered and was taken into possession of police.
8. ' Besides this from the uniform of accused Muhammad Sharif posted as Security Guard one Rifle No,ANA 15255 without licence was recovered. As such with the help of officers, officials and lady constables the male accused and lady accused were arrested at the spot vide Mushirnama of arrest and I had brought at Police Station alongwith case property. Since the offence of accused, owners and hotel administration falls under sections 13, 14 and 18, Zina Hudood Ordinance, as such I had registered the case against them. I, S.H.O. Has started investigation of this crime. In respect of recovered weapon and wine separate cages are being registered. The copies of F.I.R. Will be distributed according to rules.
9. (Sd)
10. S.H.O."
11. ' After due investigation, the police has sent up the case in the Court of law.
12. ' It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the trial Court has rejected the bail of all the accused mentioned in the F.I.R.. And thereafter they moved to this Court by filing different bail applications. It is further urged that none of the sections of Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Huddood) Ordinance, 1979 are applicable to the prosecution case as contained in the F.I.R. And section 13 of the Ordinance speaks about the selling of person for the purposes of prostitution and section 14 lays down the offence of buying, hiring or otherwise obtaining possession of any person with the intent that such person shall at any time be employed or used for the purpose of prostitution or illicit intercourse. Lastly, it is urged that the other co-accused have been granted bail by this Court in Criminal Bail Applications Nos. 403 of 2001, 412 of 2001 and 384 of 2001 and the case of the present applicants/accused is identical with the case of the co-accused, who have already been granted bail by this Court. Therefore, the rule of consistency requires that the present applicant/accused may also be granted bail and be put up in similar position as the other co- accused named above.
13. ' Mr. Kazi Wali Muhammad, learned counsel for the State, has conceded for the grant of bail to the applicant/accused and further stated that the case has been sent in the Court of law and applicant/accused is no more required for further investigation.
14. ' I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant as well as the learned State Counsel and has also gone through the material available on record.
15. It is settled law that where one accused is granted bail then the other accused is placed in the similar and identical circumstances. The applicant/accused should be put at par with the co- accused and as per rule of consistency the applicant/accused is entitled for grant of bail. This view has been expressed in the case of Muhammad Nasim alias Nasimo v. The State, reported in 1996 PCr.L.1 1302.
16. ' In view of the grounds urged by the learned counsel for the applicant/accused coupled with no objection extended by the learned State Counsel, there is only allegation that the applicant/accused attempted to commit sexual intercourse at the time of raid but there is no direct or indirect evidence available on record. In view of the dictum laid down in the cases of Muhammad Fazil alias Baidi v. The State, 1979 SCM R 9, Khadim Hussain v. The State 1983 SCMR 124, Abdul Salam v. The State 1980 SCM R 142 and also in recent case of Muhammad Bashir v. The State, the Hon'ble Supreme Court again followed the principle of consistency and declined to interfere with the order of the High Court, I am of the opinion that this is a case of further enquiry as visage in proviso (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. Hence the applicant/accused is entitled for giant of bail' - ' Accordingly, bail is granted to the applicants/accused in the sum of Rs,1,00,000 each and PR bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.