Summary: Bail denied -----(a) Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act, 2016 ---- Ss. 20, 24, 47 --- Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 376(A), 509, 109 & 153 --- Cyber defamation --- Dissemination of false, indecent content on social media against a police official --- Bail declined despite offence not falling under prohibitory clause --- Prima facie material available. Accusation against the petitioner, a YouTuber/V-logger, was that he shared and circulated a video clip via WhatsApp falsely accusing the complainant, a police official, of committing Zina with a lady constable. The video was also shared in various social media groups, causing severe reputational damage and psychological trauma to the complainant and tarnishing the image of the police department. Inquiry conducted by Superintendent of Police confirmed that the allegations were false and that the petitioner and his co-accused were responsible for spreading the defamatory content. Recovery of the petitioner’s phone yielded the video in question, substantiating his involvement. Although offences under Ss. 20 and 24 of PECA, 2016 are bailable and compoundable under S. 47, PECA, and not hit by the prohibitory clause of S. 497, Cr.P.C., courts have held that bail may still be declined in exceptional circumstances where the offence shocks public morality or affects society at large. Petitioner's actions were found to be socially harmful and humiliating, and could lead to psychological breakdown or suicidal ideation in victims. No ground for further inquiry was found. Held, bail is not to be granted as a matter of right where the conduct is heinous, even if the offence is not listed under the prohibitory clause. Petition dismissed. Cited Cases: • Imran Khan v. The State 2020 P.Cr.L.J 1652 • Shameel Ahmad v. The State 2009 SCMR 174 • Sohail Younas v. The State and others 2015 P.Cr.L.J 563 Cited Provisions: • Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act, 2016, Ss. 20, 24, 47 • Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, Ss. 376(A), 509, 109, 153 • Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 497 Disposition: Bail petition dismissed.

Summary: (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898): ----S. 497(5), S. 498 Pre-arrest bail—Scope and guiding principles—Extraordinary relief. Pre-arrest bail is an extraordinary relief granted in exceptional cases to prevent undue harassment, humiliation, or victimization due to mala fide motives. The conditions for granting such bail include: (i) the presence of ulterior motives behind the arrest, (ii) malice on the part of the police or complainant, and (iii) the existence of reasonable grounds that warrant further inquiry into the guilt of the accused. The scope of pre-arrest bail has been expanded to cases where the accused can show that their case falls under S. 497(2), Cr.P.C., necessitating further investigation. The trial court correctly applied these principles while granting bail to the accused-respondents. ----Cited Cases: • PLD 2009 SC 427 • PLD 1983 SC 82 • 2012 PCr.LJ 430 • 1997 MLD 2926 (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898): ----S. 497(5), S. 498 Cancellation of bail—Higher threshold for revocation—Burden on complainant. Once bail is granted by a competent court, strong and exceptional grounds are required for its cancellation. Bail can only be revoked if there is misuse of concession, interference with investigation, or a likelihood of the accused absconding or tampering with evidence. The mere assertion that the trial court misapplied legal principles is insufficient to justify revocation. The court found no illegality or irregularity in the trial court’s order, and thus, the revision petition was dismissed. ----Cited Cases: • Zafar Mehmood v. Muzaffar (2014 PCr.LJ 1512) (c) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898): ----S. 161 Tentative assessment of evidence at bail stage—No deeper appreciation. At the stage of bail, courts only conduct a tentative assessment of evidence, including the FIR, statements recorded under S. 161, Cr.P.C., and other relevant material. A deeper appreciation of evidence is not permissible. The petitioner’s reliance on CCTV footage and conflicting witness statements did not provide conclusive proof of guilt, thereby warranting further inquiry into the matter. ----Cited Cases: • Murad Khan’s Case (PLD 1983 SC 82) (d) Penal Code (XLV of 1860): ----SS. 147, 148, 149, 379, 382, 427, 447, 506, 509, 511 Allegations of criminal trespass, theft, and mischief—Possibility of false implication—Further inquiry required. The accused-respondents were alleged to have trespassed on disputed land, committed theft, and used criminal force. However, due to the existence of civil litigation regarding land ownership and contradictory witness statements, the possibility of false implication could not be ruled out. Several crucial questions—such as how the alleged theft of construction materials was executed—remained unanswered, making the case fit for further inquiry under S. 497(2), Cr.P.C. The court upheld the bail order accordingly. ----Disposition: Petition dismissed. The pre-arrest bail granted to the accused-respondents was upheld due to lack of strong reasons for cancellation.

Summary: Acquittal granted ---- 1. Criminal Law – Rape – Failure to Produce Crucial Evidence (Sections 376, 509, 292 PPC) The prosecution failed to produce critical evidence, including the alleged weapon used in the crime, memory card, and nude photographs, which were central to substantiating the charges. Lack of safe custody of case property and inconsistency in descriptions of the memory card rendered the evidence inadmissible. (Nadeem alias Kala v. State, 2010 SCMR 949). ------- 2. Medical Examination – Potency Test – Non-Compliance with Section 53-A CrPC The absence of a potency test report for the accused, as mandated by Section 53-A CrPC, created a serious procedural lapse. Proof of potency is essential in sexual offence cases to establish the accused’s capability to commit the alleged crime. (Zafar Iqbal v. The State, 2022 SCMR 223). ------- 3. Withholding Natural Witnesses – Adverse Inference (Section 114(g), Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984) The prosecution failed to produce natural witnesses, including the children allegedly locked in a room, leading to an adverse inference against the prosecution. (Mst. Shazia Parveen v. The State, 2014 SCMR 1197). ------- 4. Prosecution’s Inconsistencies – Doubt in Prosecution Case Inconsistencies regarding the date on the memory card and discrepancies in the ages of the victim’s children cast doubt on the credibility of the prosecution's case. Such contradictions weaken the prosecution’s stance and entitle the accused to the benefit of the doubt. (Muhammad Mansha v. The State, 2018 SCMR 772). ------- 5. Victim's Non-Medico-Legal Examination – Effect on Prosecution Case (Section 376 PPC) The victim did not undergo a medico-legal examination to corroborate the allegations of rape, a critical requirement to substantiate charges under Section 376 PPC. This omission created a significant evidentiary gap. (Sarfraz v. The State, 2000 SCMR 1758). ------- 6. Compromise by Complainant and Victim – No Objection to Acquittal During trial, the complainant and the victim stated their lack of objection to the appellant’s acquittal. Although compromise does not outright absolve the accused in certain offences, it reinforces doubts in an already weak prosecution case. ------- 7. Benefit of Doubt – Prosecution's Failure to Prove Case Beyond Reasonable Doubt (Sections 376, 509, 292 PPC) The prosecution's failure to meet the threshold of proving the case beyond reasonable doubt, coupled with inconsistencies and lack of crucial evidence, entitled the appellant to the benefit of the doubt. (Tarique Parvez v. The State, 1995 SCMR 1345). ------- Disposition: Appeal Allowed: Convictions and sentences under Sections 376, 509, and 292 PPC were set aside. Appellant Acquitted: The appellant was acquitted of all charges by extending the benefit of doubt. Order for Immediate Release: Appellant was ordered to be released unless required in any other case. ---Order accordingly.