Summary: Post Arrest Bail by Azam Khan Swati in FIR No. 185/2022 dated 26.11.2022 U/s 20 PECA 2016 r/w 131, 500, 501, 505, & 109 PPC P.S. FIA Cyber Crime Reporting Centre, Islamabad ---- Background: In Criminal Miscellaneous No. 1644-B/2022, Muhammad Azam Khan Swati sought bail after arrest in FIR No. 185/2022 dated 26.11.2022. The FIR was registered under Sections 20 of PECA, 2016, read with Sections 131, 500, 501, 505, and 109 of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC) at the Police Station Federal Investigation Agency, Cyber-Crime Reporting Centre, Islamabad. The case was based on a complaint alleging that objectionable tweets were made from Swati's Twitter account, inciting mutiny and derogatory remarks about serving Army Personnel. -----Issues: 1) Whether the petitioner was entitled to bail despite the charges under Sections 20 of PECA, 2016, and various sections of the PPC. 2) Whether the procedural requirements for investigation were followed by the Federal Investigation Agency (FIA). 3) Whether the petitioner's repeated offence disqualified him from bail. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: Entitlement to Bail: The court noted that none of the offences charged against the petitioner fell within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.P.C., as the maximum punishment under Section 131 PPC was up to 10 years. According to the established principle, for the purpose of bail, the lesser sentence should be considered, thus entitling the petitioner to bail as a rule, with refusal being an exception (Tariq Bashir v. The State, PLD 1995 SC 34). ----Procedural Requirements: The court observed that the FIA did not follow the Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) No. 5/2020, which required a notice under Section 160 Cr.P.C. and a verification process before arrest. The procedural lapse rendered the case one of further inquiry, thus justifying the grant of bail. ----Repeated Offence: Although the petitioner had a previous FIR (No. 109/2022 dated 13.10.2022), the court found that this alone did not fall within the exceptions established in the Tariq Bashir case. The respondents could seek cancellation of bail if the petitioner repeated the offence, but this was not sufficient to deny bail at this stage. ----Outcome: The petition for bail was allowed. The petitioner was granted bail subject to furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 200,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court. The court noted that if the petitioner repeated the offence, the law would take its course, and the respondents could apply for the recall of the bail order. ----Citations/Precedents: Tariq Bashir v. The State (PLD 1995 SC 34) Kh. Soleman Rafiq v. The State (PLD 2020 SC 456) Asif Ali Zardari v. The State (PLD 2001 SC 568) Ms. Benazir Bhutto v. The President of Pakistan (1992 SCMR 140) M. H. Khondkar v. The State (PLD 1966 Supreme Court 140) Islamic Republic of Pakistan v. Abdul Wali Khan (PLD 1976 Supreme Court 57)

Summary: Background: The petitioner filed a private complaint under Section 7 of the Offence of Qazf (Enforcement of Hadd) Ordinance VIII of 1979, along with Sections 420, 468, 471, 419, 500, 501 PPC read with Section 476 Cr.P.C., against multiple respondents. The complaint alleged that the respondents had made false accusations of zina (adultery) and the birth of an illegitimate child. The learned Additional Sessions Judge Chakwal dismissed the complaint on February 22, 2016, leading to the current revision petition. ----Issues: 1- Whether the trial court erred in dismissing the private complaint under Section 203 Cr.P.C. 2- Whether the trial court's decision was contrary to Islamic law and based on a misreading of the evidence. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The Federal Shariat Court dismissed the criminal revision petition. The Court found that: The evidence provided by the petitioner was insufficient to establish the offence of Qazf. The statement by the respondent was not challenged during cross-examination, rendering it accepted as true. The timing and nature of the divorce and marriage allegations were inconsistent and raised doubts about the credibility of the petitioner’s claims. The trial court's decision was based on sound reasoning, and the issues raised in the revision petition did not justify overturning the dismissal of the complaint. ----Citations/Precedents: Mst. Nuzhat Jabin v. Jamil Hussain Shah and 2 others, PLD 1996 FSC 15 Abdul Rashid v. Mst. Safia Bibi, PLD 1986 FSC 10 Haji Bakhtawar Said Muhammad v. Mst. Dur-e-Shahwar Begum and others, 2010 SCMR 681 Muhammad Humayun v. The State, PLD 1997 FSC 5

Summary: (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)----Ss. 500, 501 & 502---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.561-A-- Quashing of proceedings---News published in the daily newspaper of the accused was a fair criticism against the complainant Officer regarding his having acted against the Rules and Policy in providing jobs to favourites despite an official ban against such recruitment---Complainant, therefore, did not appear to have been defamed in any manner by the said publication, nor he had so stated in his complaint or in his statement recorded under S.200, Cr.P.C.--Offending publication also could not be termed to be aimed at dubbing the complainant to be guilty of racial discrimination or having lost any reputation on account of it-- Sections 500 & 501, P.P.C. having not been attracted in the case proceedings initiated on the complaint amounted to abuse of the process of law and the same were quashed accordingly. (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----S. 200---Examination of complainant---Mode---Statement of the complainant in direct complaint should be recorded by the Magistrate himself in his own hand in order to exclude all possibilities of prompting and such statements should not be allowed to be recorded by the Reader of the Court or by any other Clerk. Tahir Javed and others v. Abdul Razzaq and others PLD 1995 Lah. 261 and Muhammad Ali Kazi and another v. The State and 3 others 1994 PCr.LJ 430 ref.