PESHAWAR: Peshawar High Court has ruled that constitutional guarantees including privacy of home couldn’t be permitted to be violated through ‘arbitrary’ police action in the garb of offences related to ‘immorality’.
A single-member bench of Justice Mudasser Ameer also ruled that the provisions of Pakistan Penal Code (PPC) dealing with buying and selling a person for the purpose of prostitution couldn’t be applied to mere presence of opposite genders inside a private house even if they were in objectionable condition unless essential ingredients of those provisions existed.
The bench made these observations while allowing two bail petitions filed by two women and a man, who were arrested by officials of Mansehra City police station on May 2, 2026, from a private house and were charged under sections 371-A (selling a person for purpose of prostitution) and 371-B (buying a person for purpose of prostitution) of PPC.
The bench directed the petitioner to submit two surety bonds each of Rs100,000.
Bail granted to a man and two women arrested in Mansehra
Police alleged that on receipt of a public complaint regarding alleged use of a rented house for prostitution, they conducted a raid whereupon they found a male and a female present in one of the rooms, whereas another male and female in another room. They said that one of the male suspects managed to escape from the place of occurrence.
“Sections 371-A and 371-B of PPC are intended to curb trafficking, sale, purchase and commercial exploitation of human beings for purposes of prostitution. Mere allegation of immoral conduct or mere presence of a male and female inside a private premises does not ipso facto attract the said provisions unless material exists showing buying, selling, hiring, trafficking or commercial sexual exploitation of a person,” the bench ruled in its five-page detailed judgement.
“Significantly, there is no allegation in the FIR that the present petitioners or any other person was engaged in buying, selling, trafficking, hiring or commercial dealing of any human being for purposes of prostitution,” the bench observed.
It said that there was also no allegation that any money was recovered, any customer was found negotiating such transaction, or that any material indicative of organised prostitution or trafficking was secured during the raid.
The bench pointed out that the contents of the FIR, even if accepted at their face value, didn’t prima facie disclose the essential ingredients of sections 371-A or 371-B PPC.
“At best, the allegations merely suggest presence of opposite genders inside a private house. Such circumstance by itself does not constitute the offences alleged,” the bench ruled.
Referring to an earlier judgement in almost identical case, the bench observed that it was specifically held that even where a male and female were found in an objectionable condition, sections 371-A and 371-B of PPC were not automatically attracted unless material existed showing sale, purchase or hiring of a person for prostitution.
“Even otherwise, where allegations merely relate to consensual intercourse or fornication, prosecution, if any, could only proceed through complaint under Section 203 of CrPC and not through registration of FIR under sections 371-A and 371-B of PPC,” the bench observed.
Highlighting importance of privacy of home, the bench observed that the manner in which the raid was conducted also raised serious legal and constitutional concerns.
“Admittedly, the raid was carried out at a private dwelling house without obtaining any search warrant from a magistrate and without associating respectable persons of the locality,” the judge observed.
The bench ruled: “Such intrusion into a private home, particularly involving arrest of women, directly touches upon the constitutional guarantees relating to dignity of man, privacy of home and liberty protected under articles 4, 9 and 14 of the Constitution.”
The bench referred to multiple judgements of superior courts on the subject.
It quoted from an earlier judgement wherein the high court had observed “raid at private premises without obtaining search warrant and without compliance of Section 103 of Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) amounted to unlawful intrusion prohibited by law.”
“Courts have repeatedly cautioned that under the garb of offences relating to prostitution and immorality, constitutional protections available to citizens cannot be permitted to be violated through arbitrary police action founded merely upon suspicion, anonymous complaints or spy information,” the judgement maintained.
The bench quoted from another judgment that “no police official should be allowed immunity for degrading dignity and reputation of citizens through unlawful intrusion into private life”.
Published in Dawn, June 15th, 2026