IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH AT KARACHI

Criminal Bail Application No. S - 801 of 2017

Tariq Durrani and another.……………………...…………………..Applicants

Versus

The State………….………………………………..……………….Respondent

Date of hearing and order : 27.07.2017

Mr. Saathi M. Ishaque, advocate for applicants

Mr. Muntazir Mehdi, DPG

O R D E R

FAHIM AHMED SIDDIQUI, J: Through this order, I intend to dispose of the joint bail application of applicants (1) Tariq Durrani and (2) Saquib Ali, who are involved in an offence reported by complainant Mst. Muqaddas at PS Docks through FIR No. 90/2017 under Sections 371-A, 371-B, 376 & 34 PPC.

2. The allegations against the applicants are that they had forced the complainant to work as comfort girl in a guesthouse, where they were employed.

3. The learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants are innocent and they have been falsely implicated by the complainant in this case. He submits that the attitude and character of the complainant are dubious and the contention of the complainant that she was kept in confinement is false, as at the time of recovery, she was having a cell phone, which is not possible if she was under confinement. He submits that the contention of the complainant that she was offered to the customers of the guesthouse as comfort girl is also false, as from the spot, no male customer was arrested, who had fornicated the complainant. He submits that there was no overt act for applicant Tariq Durrani. He submits that no other girl was recovered from the said guesthouse, as such it cannot be said that the said place was being used as a brothel. He points out that the owner of the guesthouse succeeded in getting bail from the trial Court, as such the rule of consistency is attracted to the case of the applicants.

4. The learned DPG opposes the instant bail application by submitting that a very horrible story has been narrated within the body of the complaint. He submits that the complainant has informed her cousin in Lahore, who contacted Sarim Barni Trust and as such the recovery of the complainant became possible. According to him, offering the complainant as a comfort girl to the customer of guest house attracts the penal sections for which maximum punishment is 25 years.

5. I have heard the arguments advanced and have gone through the available record. The complainant has levelled serious allegations in the FIR and her allegations are directly against the applicants. The complainant after recovery has levelled serious allegations for using her as a comfort girl without her consent and wish, which is amounting to a serious and heinous offence. As far as the case of the owner of the guest house is concerned, the complainant has not levelled any allegations against him; therefore, the case of the applicants is distinguishing to the case of the owner of the guesthouse. The contention of the learned counsel that no other girl was recovered and no customer was arrested, actually comes under the deeper appreciation of evidence which is not allowed at bail stage.

6. In these circumstances, I am of the view that the instant bail application fails, hence declined. However, the trial court is directed to pace up the trial and at least record the statement of complainant within a period of two months and in case of failure of compliance of this direction, the applicants are at liberty to file a fresh bail application before the trial Court.

The above are the reasons for my short order dated 27-07-2017

J U D G E