Summary: Bail granted ----- (a) Criminal Law – Post-Arrest Bail – Further Inquiry---Bail—Grant of post-arrest bail under Section 497(2) Cr.P.C.—Allegations against petitioners pertain to electronic financial fraud and forgery under the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act, 2016 ("PECA") and Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 ("PPC")—No conclusive evidence linking petitioners to offenses—Held, due to lack of sufficient material at this stage, case falls under "further inquiry" as per Section 497(2) Cr.P.C.—Reliance placed on Mazhar Ali v. The State (2025 SCMR 318), Abdul Qadir alias Ali v. The State (2022 YLR Note 22 Sindh).(b) Bailable Offenses – Right to Bail---Statutory rights—Offenses under Sections 3, 4, 13, 14, and 16 of PECA and Sections 420 and 471 of PPC are bailable—Held, in bailable offenses, bail is an indefeasible right of the accused, and there is no provision in the Code permitting cancellation of such bail—Reliance placed on Mian Mahmud Ali Qasuri v. The State (PLD 1963 SC 478), Alam Zeb v. The State (PLD 2014 SC 760).(c) Retrospective Application of Law – Substantive vs. Procedural Amendment---Statutory interpretation—Whether the Prevention of Electronic Crimes (Amendment) Act, 2025 ("Amendment Act")—which converted offenses under Sections 13 and 14 of PECA from bailable to non-bailable—applies retrospectively—Held, amendments affecting substantive rights operate prospectively unless expressly stated otherwise—Grant of bail in bailable offenses is a substantive right, not a procedural matter—Therefore, the Amendment Act applies prospectively and does not affect cases registered before its promulgation on 29.01.2025—Reliance placed on Khurshid Soap and Chemical Industries v. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 2020 SC 641), Pakistan Steel Mills Corporation v. Muhammad Azam Katper (2002 SCMR 1023), Muhammad Shabbir v. Quaid-e-Azam University (2022 SCMR 487), Mekotex (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Commissioner Inland Revenue (PLD 2024 SC 1168).(d) Bail as a Substantive Right – Change in Bail Status as a Vested Right---Bail jurisprudence—Conversion of bailable offenses into non-bailable offenses through amendment—Held, bail in bailable offenses is an absolute, vested right and cannot be taken away retrospectively—Changes affecting personal liberty are substantive, not procedural, and therefore do not apply retroactively—Reliance placed on Emperor v. Shreekant Pandurang Ketkar (1943 46 Bom. L.R. 50 (FB)), State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) v. Pankaj Yadav (Indian Kanoon), Alam Zeb v. The State (PLD 2014 SC 760), Mian Mahmud Ali Qasuri v. The State (PLD 1963 SC 478).(e) Non-Prohibitory Offenses – Bail as a Rule---Non-prohibitory clause—None of the offenses in PECA or PPC invoked in the FIR fall under the prohibitory clause of Section 497(1) Cr.P.C.—Held, grant of bail in non-prohibitory offenses is a rule, and refusal is an exception—Petitioners incarcerated since 07.11.2024—No risk of absconding or tampering with prosecution evidence—Bail granted—Reliance placed on Syed Muhammad Ali Jaferi v. The State (2025 SCP 61), Ahmad Shahzad v. The State (2023 SCMR 679), Muhammad Ajmal v. The State (2022 SCMR 274), Ahmad Khalid Butt v. The State (2021 SCMR 1016).----- Disposition:Criminal Misc. Nos. 10519-B and 10278-B of 2024 allowed – Bail granted.Amendment Act, 2025 held to apply prospectively, ensuring no retrospective impact on offenses registered before 29.01.2025.Petitioners released on bail upon furnishing surety bonds of PKR 1,000,000/- each, with two sureties in like amount.

Summary: Bail granted ---- a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) ---- ----S. 497---Bail in cases not falling within prohibitory clause---Marital disputes and allegations of cyber harassment---Judicial discretion in granting bail. The petitioner, a medical professional, was accused of accessing and disseminating private images of his spouse on social media, allegedly for blackmail. The prosecution asserted that the act amounted to sexual harassment and tarnished the complainant's reputation. The petitioner contended that the case arose from a marital dispute and that the allegations were exaggerated. The Supreme Court noted that the offences in question carried a maximum punishment of five and three years, respectively, and did not fall within the prohibitory clause of S. 497, Cr.P.C. The Court emphasized that bail is a rule and refusal an exception, particularly where the accused has been in custody for months without trial. Finding no exceptional circumstances warranting denial of bail, the Court granted bail to the petitioner, directing the Trial Court to expedite proceedings. Cited Cases: Abdul Samad v. The State 2025 SCP 31 Abdul Hayee and Abdullah alias Ghazali & another v. The State 2025 SCMR 281 Syed Fida Hussain Shah v. The State 2024 SCMR 1622

Summary: Background: Multiple petitions were filed by several journalists against the Federation of Pakistan due to numerous FIRs registered against them across various regions of Pakistan. The petitioners, who were journalists critical of government, claimed that the FIRs were filed to suppress freedom of expression. The main grievances included the registration of FIRs under the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC) sections such as 131, 153, and 505, among others, for their opinions and reports shared on social media and television platforms. The petitioners requested the consolidation of all FIRs under one jurisdiction to prevent harassment and sought transitory bail. -----Issues: 1- Whether multiple FIRs related to the same incident or cause of action can be consolidated and tried under one jurisdiction. ----2- Whether the registration of FIRs in different jurisdictions amounts to political harassment and an abuse of the criminal justice system. ----3- Whether the actions of journalists expressing opinions on social media or television can be considered crimes under the PPC and Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act (PECA). ----4- Whether the authorities must provide complete records of all FIRs filed against the petitioners. -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The court held that multiple FIRs for the same cause of action, even if registered in different provinces, violate the legal principle established in the Sughran Bibi case. After the registration of the first FIR, any subsequent FIRs are to be treated as 161 CrPC statements or supplementary to the initial case. The court ruled that registering multiple FIRs against individuals expressing opinions through media platforms, especially journalists, constitutes harassment and an abuse of the criminal justice system. The FIRs were politically motivated and intended to punish the petitioners for their critical views. The court clarified that not all cases of expressing opinions on media platforms should be considered crimes under the PPC or PECA. For an act to qualify under PECA, specific mens rea and actus reus requirements must be met, and mere criticism does not fall under these categories. The authorities were directed to provide the petitioners with all the information and records related to FIRs filed against them. Furthermore, the court emphasized that the constitutional protections of due process and the right to a fair trial must be upheld in these cases. The petitions were disposed of, and the court provided protection orders to the petitioners, preventing further arrests related to the contested FIRs. -----Citations/Precedents: Sughran Bibi v. The State (PLD 2018 SC 595) Muhammad Bashir v. The State (PLD 2007 SC 539) Ch. Abdul Razzaq v. Federation of Pakistan and others (PLD 1998 Lahore 394) Independent Media Corporation (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Government of Balochistan (PLD 2019 Balochistan 27) Asad Qaiser v. Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (Writ Petition No.5281-P/2023) Muhammad Azam Khan Swati v. Inspector General of Police, Balochistan (PLD 2023 Balochistan 85) Sandalbar Enterprises Ltd. v. Central Board of Revenue (PLD 1997 SC 334) Sui Southern Gas Limited v. Federation of Pakistan (2018 SCMR 802) Protection of Journalists and Media Professionals Act, 2021 (Enacted 01.12.2021)

Summary: Background:This Supreme Court of Pakistan case involves Suo Motu actions and Constitution Petitions concerning allegations of high-handed actions by the Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) against journalists and the broader implications for freedom of the press and expression. The specific actions under scrutiny involve the abduction and assault of journalists Mr. Absar Alam, Mr. Matiullah Jan, and Mr. Asad Ali Toor, with the incidents leading to FIRs No. 127/2021 and No. 128/2021 lodged at the FIA Cyber Crime Wing, Lahore.----Issues:The adequacy and fairness of the police investigations into the abductions and assaults of the journalists.The procedural integrity in handling the cases, including the gathering and forensic analysis of evidence.The legal and systemic implications for freedom of the press in Pakistan, considering the alleged involvement of law enforcement and possibly higher authorities.----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The Supreme Court highlighted multiple failures in the investigation and procedural handling of the cases:Inadequate Investigation: The court noted serious lapses in the investigation, including failure to use geolocation data and other modern investigative techniques to trace the abductors or assailants and the mishandling of evidence such as surveillance footage.Forensic Failures: The court ordered a comprehensive forensic analysis of all available video recordings and stressed the need to investigate all potential leads, such as surveillance from sensitive buildings and national highway cameras.Procedural Incompetence: The court expressed dismay at the police's failure to diligently pursue leads or effectively use resources such as the Safe City Project's cameras or the National Highway Authority's cameras.The court directed a reconstitution of the investigation team, emphasizing the need for competent officers to take over and for the investigative process to be thorough and unbiased. It also highlighted the need for cooperation from all relevant authorities.----Citations/Precedents:National Cyber Crime Investigation Agency (Establishment, Powers and Functions) Rules, 2024: These rules were referenced in relation to the establishment of a dedicated agency to handle cybercrime, which could potentially play a role in investigating crimes against journalists.Prevention of Electronic Crime Act, 2016: This act was mentioned as the legal framework under which the new National Cyber Crime Investigation Agency operates.

Summary: (a) Criminal Procedure—Cognizance by Magistrate on Negative Report of Investigating Officer (IO):----Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (Cr.P.C.), Ss. 173 & 497—Magistrate’s powers to disagree with IO’s report—Requirement of supporting evidenceThe Judicial Magistrate took cognizance against the applicants despite a negative police report, which had placed their names in Column No.2 of the challan. The Supreme Court held that while a Magistrate can disagree with an IO’s findings, such discretion must be exercised judiciously. The Magistrate must rely on incriminating material available in the record—mere allegations in an FIR do not suffice to justify taking cognizance. The absence of forensic or other supporting evidence against the applicants meant the Magistrate erred in law by proceeding against them.----Cited Law:• Cr.P.C., S. 173 (Challan Submission Procedure)• Cr.P.C., S. 497 (Placement of Innocent Accused in Column No.2)(b) Cybercrime—Lack of Evidence Against Accused in Digital Offenses:----Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act, 2016 (PECA), Ss. 20, 21(d), 24—Forensic examination of mobile phones—Standard of proof in cybercrime casesThe case involved allegations of cyber harassment, blackmail, and sharing of obscene content under PECA 2016. The Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) seized the accused persons’ mobile phones for forensic analysis, but the forensic report found no evidence of the alleged WhatsApp messages or explicit content on the applicants’ devices. The Court ruled that mere accusations without forensic or digital proof do not justify prosecution under PECA 2016.----Cited Law:• Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act, 2016 (PECA), S. 20 (Malicious Online Content)• PECA, S. 21(d) (Cyber Harassment)• PECA, S. 24 (Cyberstalking and Threats)(c) Criminal Law—Misuse of Criminal Proceedings Against Innocent Parties:----Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 (Cr.P.C.), Ss. 22-A & 22-B—False implication of accused—Judicial scrutiny of complaintsInitially, the complainant filed a cybercrime complaint against her ex-fiancé (main accused) but later expanded the scope to include his relatives (the applicants). The Court observed that no credible evidence linked the applicants to the alleged offenses, and their names were added without any forensic proof. The Magistrate failed to assess the credibility of the allegations properly. The Court ruled that criminal proceedings should not be used as a tool for personal vendettas and set aside the Magistrate’s order.----Cited Law:• Cr.P.C., Ss. 22-A & 22-B (Powers of Justice of Peace to Register FIRs)• Cr.P.C., S. 173 (Procedure for Challan Submission and Cognizance)(d) Cyber Evidence—Admissibility and Weight of Digital Proof:----Use of WhatsApp messages and screenshots as evidence—Forensic authentication requiredThe complainant presented WhatsApp screenshots to show that one of the accused (Applicant No.5) had threatened her. However, the FIA’s forensic report confirmed that the phone in question belonged to the main accused (Imran), who was using it under the applicant’s name. The Court ruled that screenshots alone do not constitute admissible evidence unless authenticated by forensic analysis. In cybercrime cases, scientific verification is essential before attributing an offense to a specific individual.----Cited Law:• Pakistan Electronic Transactions Ordinance, 2002 (PETO), S. 3 (Authenticity of Electronic Records)• PECA 2016, S. 20 (Reputation-Damaging Content Must be Proven)(e) Final Judgment—Application Allowed, Applicants Declared Innocent:----Magistrate’s order set aside—Applicants’ names removed from the challan—Liberty to re-add accused if future evidence arisesThe Supreme Court declared the applicants innocent, ruling that the Magistrate’s decision lacked legal justification. However, the prosecution retains the right to re-indict the applicants if new incriminating evidence emerges during trial. The Court warned against frivolous criminal cases and emphasized that criminal law should not be misused to settle personal disputes.----Disposition:Application Allowed—Magistrate’s order set aside—Applicants’ names removed from the challan—Prosecution may reinstate charges if new evidence emerges.

Summary: Bail denied ---- The accused sought bail after arrest in a case involving offenses under Sections 21 and 24 of the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act, 2016. The allegation against him was that he unlawfully captured, recorded, and transmitted objectionable pictures of the complainant, and shared them with her family members, including her father and husband, via WhatsApp. Additionally, the petitioner posted these images on Facebook, causing significant harm to the complainant's modesty. ---- Issues: 1) Whether the petitioner was entitled to bail based on the argument that the offense does not fall under the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Cr.P.C. --2) Whether sufficient evidence existed to support the denial of bail. ---3) Whether the trial court should grant bail while the trial is ongoing. ---- Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: Bail Denied: The court held that although the offenses did not fall under the prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.P.C., bail could still be refused based on the seriousness of the crime and the available evidence. Sufficient Evidence: The court found that the Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) had gathered sufficient incriminating evidence, including a technical analysis expert report, proving the petitioner's involvement in the crime. No Leniency: The court emphasized the seriousness of such crimes, highlighting how the dissemination of objectionable pictures leads to lifelong stigma for victims and sometimes results in suicide. It ruled that individuals committing such offenses are not entitled to leniency. Trial in Progress: Since the trial was in progress and the investigation had been completed, the court ruled that it was inappropriate to grant bail at this stage, following established legal precedents. --- Citations/Precedents: Irfan Sarwar v. The State (2022 PCr.LJ Note 71) Afzaal Ahmed v. The State (2003 SCMR 573) Muhammad Siddique v. Imtiaz Begum and others (2002 SCMR 442) Haji Muhammad Nazir and others v. The State (2008 SCMR 807) 2020 PCr.LJ 1652 2018 PCr.LJ 408 2018 PCr.LJ 1667 2018 YLR 329 Rehmat Ullah v. The State (2011 SCMR 1332)

Summary: Bail granted ---- Grant of statutory bail if the delay in the conclusion of the trial is due to the act of the Court. --- the petitioner, sought leave to appeal against the mentioned order, which denied his second post-arrest bail in a case registered under Section 11 PECA, 2016, along with various other sections at the FIA Cybercrime Reporting Centre, Police Station FIA Cybercrime Wing, Lahore.According to the crime report, the petitioner was accused of disseminating content through WhatsApp/SMS using a mobile network, and material was later recovered from his residence during a raid. the Supreme Court considered the petitioner's request for statutory bail in light of constitutional guarantees under Article 4, 9, and 10A of the Constitution. The court emphasized that these constitutional provisions underpin the accused's right to protection under the law, entitlement to a fair trial, and due process, making the right to bail under the third proviso to Section 497 CrPC not merely statutory but constitutionally secured. The court cited relevant precedents, including Fida Hussain v. State, PLD 2002 SC 46; Sher Ahmed v. State, 1995 SCMR 1944; Zahir Hussain Shah v. State, PLD 1995 SC 49; and Imtiyaz Ahmad v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 2012 SC 642.Moreover, the court underscored that an accused may be denied statutory bail only when it can be demonstrated that their actions or omissions were aimed at intentionally prolonging the trial through a calculated pattern of seeking adjournments without justifiable reasons during significant trial proceedings. It emphasized that a mere tally of adjournment requests is insufficient to warrant bail denial.Furthermore, the petitioner's trial had been suspended by the High Court due to a pending Criminal Revision, causing the statutory period of delay exceeding two years to elapse. Crucially, this delay primarily resulted from the High Court's repeated relisting of the case and was not attributable to any fault on the petitioner's part.The court advised that while the High Court retains the authority to stay or suspend criminal trial proceedings, such actions should be exercised cautiously and should ensure the expedited resolution of the case after granting injunctive relief.

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: Ss. 21 & 24 of The prevention of electronic crimes Act 2016-------Dignity & modesty of a natural person---infringement of privacy right---- discussed legally as well as Islamic point of view. The case involves FIR No.491/2021 dated 23.09.2021 under sections 21 and 24 PECA, 2016, registered at Police Station FIA Cyber Crime Reporting Centre, Peshawar. The prosecution's case alleges that Naveed Ahmad shared objectionable pictures of the complainant, Sidra Farhad, with her father, Farhad Hussain, and threatened to share them on social media. The judgment highlights the gravity of cyber crimes under the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act 2016 and affirms the conviction and sentencing of the petitioner-accused by the lower courts. The court dismisses all three quashment petitions, emphasizing the careful exercise of powers under section 561-A Cr. PC. It acknowledges the weight given to factual findings and expert testimony, reaffirming the decisions of the lower courts.In conclusion, the quashment petitions are dismissed, and the benefit of section 382-B Cr. PC is extended to the petitioner-accused, with substantive sentences ordered to run concurrently.

Summary: Azam Swati has been arrested by FIA. Seeks direction upon the Interior secretary to compile data regarding all FIRs lodged against him regarding the same occurrences. (FIR No. 185/2022 dated 26.11.2022 U/s 20 of PECA 2016 r/w 131,500,501,505,109 PPC P.S. FIA Cyber Crime Reporting Centre, Islamabad) --- Background: In W.P. No. 4441 of 2022, Muhammad Azam Khan Swati petitioned for information on pending cases against him in Sindh and Balochistan related to the same occurrence of social media tweets against the Armed Forces of Pakistan. Swati sought directions for the Federation of Pakistan to provide this information, claiming it as his fundamental right for defense. ----Issues: 1) Whether Swati has a legal right to seek information on pending cases against him in other provinces. 2) Whether the Federal Government is obligated to provide such information. 3) Application of Articles 149 and 10-A of the Constitution in this context. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: ----Legal Right to Information: The court held that there is no legal right for an individual to seek such information under Article 149 or the Rules of Business, 1973. Article 10-A provides the right to a fair trial but does not mandate the provision of information about pending cases. Federal Government's Obligation: The court found no obligation on the Federal Government to obtain information for the petitioner. Article 149 and Rules of Business: The court noted that these provisions empower the Federal Government to issue general directions, not specific to individuals seeking information about pending cases. -----Outcome: The petition was disposed of, with the court advising Swati to seek remedies in the relevant provincial jurisdictions (Sindh and Balochistan). The court suggested the development of a national system to link all police stations to manage information on FIRs, referencing the principles laid down in Sughran Bibi’s case. -----Citations/Precedents: The State of Pakistan v. Mehrajuddin [PLD 1959 SC 147] Fazal-E-Haq v. The State [PLD 1960 SC 295] Nawab Syed Raunaq Ali v. Chief Settlement Commission [PLD 1973 SC 236] Masudul Hassan v. Khadim Hussain [PLD 1963 SC 203] Mst. Sughran Bibi v. The State [PLD 2018 SC 595] Sh. Ihsanul Haq Piracha v. Mr. Wasim Sajjad [PLD 1986 SC 200]