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 Law – Appeal Against Acquittal: ----Ss. 302, 311, 201, 34, Cr.P.C. & S. 20 of Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act, 2016 Acquittal of accused in honour killing case involving alleged viral video of deceased girls––State filed appeal against acquittal by trial court––Allegation that two girls were murdered by cousins after a video involving them and accused went viral on social media––Initial investigation claimed motive was based on honour––Mobile phone and video footage taken into possession but forensic reports failed to establish direct connection between recovered device and accused––Judicial Magistrate’s exhumation attempt obstructed by tribal elders and deceased families citing religious and cultural reasons––Confessional statement of main accused failed to constitute a true confession of murder––Held, prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt––In an appeal against acquittal, presumption of innocence is doubled––Unless trial court’s judgment is perverse, arbitrary, or mechanical, findings are not to be lightly interfered with––Trial court rightly extended benefit of doubt and based findings on sound legal reasoning––Appeal dismissed. ----Cited Cases: • Ghulam Sikandar v. Mamaraz Khan and others PLD 1985 SC 11 • Muhammad Riaz v. Khurram Shehzad and another 29249-51 • The State v. Abdul Khaliq and others PLD 2011 SC 554 • Amin Khan v. Gul and others (citation not specified) "(Appeal against acquittal) (a) Appeal against acquittal--Ss.302, 311, 201/34 P.P.C read with Section 20 of the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act, 2016—Reappraisal of evidence—Respondents/accused were charged for committing murder of two girls on the pretext of honour and were buried without conducting autopsy on the dead bodies—The occurrence was unseen as the complainant S.H.O on receiving information about the murder of two ladies, rushed to the crime village where it was told to him that they were murdered by their cousin reportedly due to their objectionable video with accused Umer Ayaz, which had gone viral on social media. Although the mobile phone through which the objectionable video featuring two deceased women and the accused Umer Ayaz was allegedly taken into possession which was sent to the F.S.L, however, there was no report on file to confirm that the said mobile phone belonged to the accused. (b) Confessional statement—The confessional statement of accused Umer Ayaz, relied upon by the prosecution, did not constitute confessional statement as the same only acknowledged friendship of the accused with the deceased women, specially given that the accused had not been charged with the murder of the two women. (c) It is cardinal principal of law and natural justice that every person, accused of an offence, is to be considered innocent, unless and until proved guilty on the basis of legal and unimpeachable evidence. However, after facing full-fledged trial, if an accused of a crime is acquitted by the competent Court of law, then a presumption of his innocence gets doubled and very strong and exceptional circumstances are required to overturn the conviction judgment. (Appeal was dismissed in limine)."PECA

Summary: Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 (Section 497) – Post-arrest bail – Offence not falling under the prohibitory clause – Discretion of the court in exceptional circumstances. Although offences not attracting the prohibitory limb of Section 497 Cr.P.C. generally warrant the grant of bail as a rule, the court retains discretion to refuse bail based on the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. In this instance, the petitioner’s actions were deemed egregious, involving the editing and dissemination of nude photographs of the complainant’s sister and mother, thereby harming their dignity and reputation. Such extraordinary circumstances justified the refusal of bail despite the non-prohibitory nature of the offence. ---------- 2. Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act, 2016 (Sections 20, 21, 24) – Editing and dissemination of explicit images – Violation of privacy and dignity. The petitioner was charged under Sections 20, 21, and 24 of the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act, 2016, for editing photographs of the complainant's female family members into obscene images and threatening to disseminate them publicly. Forensic evidence and technical reports corroborated the allegations, confirming the petitioner’s culpability. The severity of the offence, involving cyber harassment and the exploitation of privacy, weighed heavily against granting bail. ---------- 3. Cyber harassment – Evidence – Forensic analysis as corroborative proof. The recovery of the petitioner’s mobile phone, containing objectionable and edited photographs, and the forensic analysis confirming the dissemination of such content through WhatsApp, provided strong corroborative evidence. Statements of witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C. further implicated the petitioner, demonstrating his involvement in the crime. ---------- 4. Public policy – Protection of dignity and privacy – Exceptional denial of bail. The court emphasized the significance of safeguarding the dignity and privacy of individuals, particularly women, against acts of revenge and cyber exploitation. The petitioner’s actions, targeting both the sister and mother of the complainant, constituted an exceptional case warranting denial of bail. Public policy considerations played a critical role in the court’s decision. ---------- 5. Judicial precedents – Refusal of bail in exceptional cases. The court relied on precedents to underscore the principle that even in cases not falling under the prohibitory clause, bail can be refused when exceptional circumstances exist: ---------- Muhammad Siddique v. Imtiaz Begum and others (2002 SCMR 442) -Malik Muhammad Tahir v. The State and another (2022 SCMR 2040) -Fakhar Zaman v. The State and another (2023 P.Cr.L.J. 496) -Muhammad Haseeb v. The State and another (2024 P.Cr.L.J. 1462)

Summary: The petitioner, filed a complaint with the Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) against defendant, alleging harassment, blackmail, and unauthorized dissemination of her personal pictures. FIR No.45/2016 was registered under sections 36 and 37 of the Electronic Transactions Ordinance (ETO) 2002, read with sections 500, 506, and 509 of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC). The trial proceeded in the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Court (PECC), Islamabad. ----Issues 1. Whether sections 36 and 37 of the ETO 2002 are applicable to the case. 2. Whether the charges should be altered to sections 20, 21, and 24 of the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act (PECA) 2016. 3. Whether the Islamabad High Court correctly dismissed the petitioner's criminal revision in limine. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The Supreme Court dismissed the petition for leave to appeal, affirming the decisions of the lower courts. ----Non-Applicability of ETO 2002 Sections 36 and 37: Sections 36 and 37 of the ETO 2002 were not attracted as the respondent did not attempt to access, alter, or impair any information system. The allegations of harassment and blackmail did not involve actions described under sections 36 and 37 of the ETO 2002. -----Non-Applicability of PECA 2016: The PECA 2016 came into force on 18.08.2016, while the alleged offenses occurred prior to this date. Article 12 of the Constitution of Pakistan prohibits retrospective punishment, ensuring no law can authorize punishment for acts that were not punishable at the time they were committed. High Court’s Order: The Islamabad High Court correctly dismissed the criminal revision, maintaining that sections 36 and 37 of ETO 2002 and the provisions of PECA 2016 were not applicable. Outcome: The petition was dismissed, and the decision to transfer the case to the Court of Sessions was upheld. ----Citations/Precedents: Constitution of Pakistan: Article 12: Protection against retrospective punishment Electronic Transactions Ordinance (ETO) 2002: Section 36: Violation of privacy of information Section 37: Damage to information systems Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act (PECA) 2016: Sections 20, 21, 24 Section 54: Non-attraction of PECA provisions prior to its enactment

Summary: Bail Matters (Post arrest bail dismissed, section 20, 21, 24, PECA,FIA Cyber Crime. Accused used Naked Photos