Summary: Bail Denied--The petitioner was accused of cyberstalking and sending defamatory messages and photographs of the complainant's daughter-in-law to her husband. The matter was investigated by the Federal Investigating Agency, which secured devices linked to the impugned communication. The petitioner's admission confirmed his involvement, leading to embarrassment for the family.The petitioner sought post-arrest bail, but his attempts were unsuccessful, culminating in an order by a learned Judge-in-Chamber of the Peshawar High Court on October 22, 2021. The petitioner applied for leave to appeal this decision, primarily contending that the alleged offenses did not fall under the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, and that since the investigation was complete, there was no justification to deviate from the general rule in favor of granting bail.Upon hearing arguments and reviewing the record, the Supreme Court considered that while it is common for bail to be granted after the conclusion of investigations in cases outside the scope of "prohibition," there are limits to this practice. In this instance, the privacy of a young woman had been violated, leading to significant distress for her family and even jeopardizing her marriage. The incident was reported by her father-in-law. Given the circumstances, the Court was not persuaded by the arguments presented at the bar to take a different view than that taken by the lower courts. Consequently, the petition was rejected, and leave to appeal was denied.

Summary: The petitioner sought post-arrest bail in a case registered under Sections 20, 21, and 24 of the Pakistan Electronic Crime Act, 2016, at Police Station FIA Cyber Crime Circle, Lahore.According to the complaint, the petitioner and his co-accused allegedly kidnapped the complainant's wife on 13.11.2019 and recorded objectionable videos of her while intoxicated. They further threatened and harassed the complainant by sharing the videos through WhatsApp, threatening to upload them globally if he did not withdraw the case.The petitioner's counsel argued that the petitioner was falsely implicated in the case and that the objectionable videos were shared by the co-accused, who had already been granted bail based on the victim's statement. The petitioner contended that he should also be granted bail based on the principle of consistency, as the maximum punishment under the statute is 5 years and does not attract the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C). The counsel relied on a previous court case that granted bail to a co-accused in a similar situation.The State, represented by Mr. Tariq Rafiq Bhandera (ASC) and Um-e-Habiba (S.I.), opposed the bail on the grounds that the petitioner was found with the co-accused, who acted under the petitioner's instructions, making him the main culprit. However, the prosecution conceded that the instrument used to share the objectionable video belonged to the co-accused, suggesting that the petitioner's case was distinguishable and he deserved bail.The Supreme Court, comprising Mr. Justice Umar Ata Bandial, Mr. Justice Amin-ud-Din Khan, and Mr. Justice Sayyed Mazahar Ali Akbar Naqvi, allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned order. The court converted the petition into an appeal, granting post-arrest bail to the petitioner on the principle of consistency with the co-accused. The petitioner was admitted to bail upon furnishing bail bonds of Rs.100,000/- with one surety in the same amount, to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court.

Summary: Bail After Arrest---Umer Khan filed a petition seeking post-arrest bail after being charged under Section 22(1) of the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act, 2016, for allegedly sharing child pornographic content on Facebook through his mobile device. The Federal Investigating Agency conducted an inquiry based on information received from Facebook and registered FIR No. 21/2021 against the petitioner.The petitioner argued that he was falsely implicated, citing a lack of direct evidence and no victims associated with the case. The maximum punishment for the offense is seven years, and the petitioner sought bail.The State opposed the bail, stating that the petitioner committed a serious offense, and there is enough material connecting him to the crime.The Court examined the evidence and emphasized the seriousness of child pornography as a social evil. Even though the offense did not fall within the prohibitory clause for granting bail, the Court considered the nature of the accusation and its impact on society, leading it to fall within the exception for granting bail in non-prohibitory cases. However, the Court dismissed the petition as it lacked merit and refused leave to appeal. The Trial Court was directed to proceed with the trial expeditiously.

Summary: Background: The petitioner sought quashment of multiple FIRs lodged across various districts, accusing him of spreading subversive and intimidating messages via Twitter against state institutions, including the military. The petitioner was charged under various sections of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC) and the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act (PECA). The petitioner contended that the multiple FIRs constituted double jeopardy and violated his rights under the Constitution and law, particularly as the charges stemmed from the same alleged occurrence. -----Issues: 1- Whether multiple FIRs for the same occurrence are permissible. -----2- Whether the filing of multiple FIRs violates the principle of double jeopardy. -----3- Whether remand procedures followed by lower courts in these cases were compliant with legal requirements. -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The court quashed the FIRs, holding that multiple FIRs regarding the same occurrence cannot be lodged, as it violates the principle of double jeopardy under Article 13 of the Constitution and Section 403 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.). The court also noted that forcing the petitioner to defend himself in multiple courts across different jurisdictions for the same offense would be a violation of Articles 4 and 13 of the Constitution. Additionally, the court expressed concern about the improper remand procedures followed in lower courts, stating that remand orders should not be granted mechanically without sufficient justification. The petitions for quashment were allowed, and the court ordered the release of the petitioner, provided he was not required in any other case. -----Citations/Precedents: Mst. Sughran Bibi v. The State (PLD 2018 Supreme Court 595) – Multiple FIRs for the same occurrence are impermissible. Ghulam Sarwar v. The State (1984 PCr.LJ 2588) – Guidelines on the grant of remand in criminal cases. Articles 4, 9, 13, and 10-A of the Constitution of Pakistan – Rights to due process, protection of the law, liberty, and freedom from double jeopardy.

Summary: Bail refused, Scam Crypto Currency through fake company.

Summary: Bail granted --- Background:The petitioner, Ismail Ijaz, sought post-arrest bail in relation to FIR No.16, dated 28.08.2021, registered under sections 9, 10, and 11 of the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act, 2016 (PECA, 2016) at Police Station FIA/CTW, Islamabad. The petitioner was accused of using his Twitter handle to disseminate, glorify, and propagate the banned organization Tehreek Labbaik Pakistan (TLP).----Issues:Whether the petitioner's actions constitute offenses under sections 9, 10, and 11 of PECA, 2016.Whether bail should be granted to the petitioner.---- Holding/Reasoning:The Court observed that for offenses punishable with fine or imprisonment, the lesser punishment should be considered for bail. Since sections 9, 10, and 11 of PECA, 2016 prescribe fine as an alternative punishment, the lesser sentence should be taken into account.It was emphasized that the accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty, and bail should not be withheld as a punishment. The Court cited Manzoor and others vs. The State to support this principle.The Court found that further inquiry was required to establish the petitioner's intent in retweeting certain tweets. Therefore, the petitioner was admitted to bail, subject to furnishing bail bonds.----Precedents/Citations:Muhammad Hayat Khan Vs. The State and another (2019 PCr.LJ 472)Mustafa Ali Vs. The State (2014 PCr.LJ 1464)Asad Ullah Vs. The State (2012 YLR 2270)Haji Zahoor Ahmed Vs. The State (2013 YLR 2644)Haji Faqir Khan Vs. The State and another (2017 PCr.LJ 1017)Muhammad Tariq Ajmal Vs. The State (2021 PCr.LJ 40)Professor Akhtar Khan Vs. The State (2021 P Cr.LJ 506)Ameer Ullah Vs. The State (2012 PCr.LJ 1858)Muhammad Mustaqeem Vs. The State (2004 YLR 68)----Disposition:The petition was allowed, and the petitioner was admitted to bail upon furnishing bail bonds.

Summary: Bail After Arrest--Bail Allowed-The petitioner was charged with Sections 201, 211, and 24 of the Prevention of Electronic Crime Act, 2016, and Section 109 of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC) for allegedly posting photographs of the complainant using a cellular device and causing sexual harassment.The petitioner's counsel argued that the accusations against the petitioner were false, and no case of sexual harassment was made out from the accusations. It was further contended that the petitioner had been in custody for more than three months, and the maximum punishment for the offense he was charged with was five years, making him eligible for post-arrest bail.The State, represented by the Deputy Attorney General and counsel for the complainant, opposed the bail, stating that such crimes against society should not be granted any concession and emphasized the rising trend of sexual harassment, requiring a firm response from the court.After hearing the arguments and examining the material collected during the investigation, the court observed that certain photographs shared on social media could be considered close to nudity, but they were not recognizable. Other photographs depicted the complainant fully dressed without any indication of immorality.Taking into account the petitioner's prolonged custody and the importance of preserving individual liberty, the court decided to grant him post-arrest bail. The petitioner was required to furnish bail bonds in the amount of Rs. 200,000 with two sureties of the same amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court. The petition was converted into an appeal, and the impugned order was set aside.

Summary: [U/S 20,21,24 PECA, 2016. 109 PPC] Harm to reputation and privacy of a lady, nude photos and videos. Court is not under compulsion to grant bail in all cases/offences punishable with less than 10 years of imprisonment. Bail Petition dismissed.

Summary: Bail granted---Background:Dr. Atif Muhammad Khan, the petitioner, has been in custody since January 1, 2020, accused by his former wife, Ms. Fozia Anwar, of distributing explicit photographs of her through a WhatsApp profile. The pictures were sent from a cell phone number issued by a United Kingdom service provider, accompanied by threatening/abusive messages, and circulated among family members. The petitioner seeks bail.---Issues:Whether there is sufficient evidence to prima facie frame charges against the petitioner.Whether the petitioner's incarceration is justified pending further evidence and trial.---Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The petitioner led to the recovery of various items during the investigation, including a mobile phone handset with SIMs and a memory card. However, a forensic examination by the Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) yielded negative results, failing to link the petitioner to the alleged dissemination of explicit material. The Investigating Officer exonerated the petitioner based on this report.The court found that although there may be animosity between the petitioner and the complainant, independent evidence is required to sustain the charge. The failure of forensic evidence casts doubt on the petitioner's culpability. The court converted the Criminal Petition into an appeal and granted bail to the petitioner upon furnishing a bond of Rs. 500,000/- with one surety to the satisfaction of the trial court/Duty Magistrate.---Citations/Precedents:Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.

Summary: The complaint was filed by Nimra Saleem, alleging that her ex-husband, Saleem Khalid, had subjected her to maltreatment, forced her into obscene activities, made sexual videos of her, and blackmailed her using these materials. The case involved allegations of drug and alcohol use, the creation of a Tinder account, and forcing the complainant into sexual interactions.The accused argued that he was falsely implicated, the raid on his residence was conducted unlawfully, and the evidence against him was insufficient to prove the charges. The prosecution, however, contended that the accused had damaged the complainant's reputation and violated her modesty by forwarding explicit material on social media.The court considered the arguments and noted that the accused had admitted to making and sharing obscene videos of the complainant. It cited relevant sections of the PECA Act related to offenses against dignity, modesty, and cyberstalking. The court determined that the charges were serious and had a significant impact on society and the victim. Therefore, it dismissed the bail application, concluding that the prosecution had sufficient evidence to connect the accused to the alleged offenses.