PLJ 2026 Cr.C. (Note) 1
[Lahore High Court, Multan Bench]
Present: Sardar Muhammad Sarfraz Dogar, J.
AFZAAL AFZAL--Petitioner
versus
STATE and another--Respondents
Crl. Misc. No. 3967-B of 2023, decided on 4.7.2023.

Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act, 2016 (XL of 2016)--

دفعات 21 اور 24 -- ضابطہ فوجداری 1898 (1898 کا ایکٹ نمبر 5)، دفعہ 497 -- شہادت کا جائزہ -- ضمانت کے مرحلے پر ریکارڈ کا صرف ابتدائی جائزہ لینے کی اجازت ہے اور شہادت/مواد کا گہرا جائزہ لینے کی اجازت نہیں ہوتی -- الزام عائد کردہ جرائم (پی ای سی اے کی دفعات 21 اور 24) ضابطہ فوجداری کی دفعہ 497 کی ممنوعہ شق کے دائرہ کار میں نہیں آتے: کیونکہ ان کی سزا پانچ (05) سال تک ہے، لیکن اس نوعیت کے مقدمات میں جہاں کسی شخص کی عزت اور عصمت داؤ پر لگی ہو، ضمانت منظور کرنے کی صوابدید کا استعمال احتیاط سے کرنا چاہیے، خاص طور پر جب جرائم پوری معاشرے کو سنگین طور پر متاثر کرتے ہیں اور اس کے اثرات نہ صرف مدعی بلکہ اس کے خاندان کے لیے تباہ کن ہوتے ہیں جو متاثرہ شخص کی مستقبل کی زندگی برباد کر سکتے ہیں -- ریکارڈ کا جائزہ لیا گیا، جو واضح طور پر ظاہر کرتا ہے کہ متاثرہ نے خود درخواست گزار کے ساتھ زیادہ تر تصاویر بنوائیں -- پی ای سی اے کی دفعہ 21 کا اطلاق صرف تب ہوتا ہے جب کوئی شخص دھمکانے، ہراساں کرنے اور مدعی کو بلیک میل کرنے کے مقصد سے کسی برہنہ ڈیٹا کی شیئرنگ میں براہ راست ملوث ہو، لیکن اس مقدمے میں، متاثرہ کا کوئی برہنہ ڈیٹا کبھی بھی تیار نہیں کیا گیا، نہ اس پر کوئی تصویر سپر امپوز کی گئی اور نہ ہی درخواست گزار کی جانب سے اسے شیئر کیا گیا، لہذا موجودہ درخواست گزار کے حوالے سے پی ای سی اے کی دفعہ 21 کا اطلاق لازمی طور پر مزید تفتیش کا متقاضی ہے -- ٹیکنیکل رپورٹ واضح طور پر ظاہر کرتی ہے کہ مدعی کا موبائل فرانزک تجزیے کے لیے بھیجا گیا تھا۔

----Ss. 21 & 24--Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 (V of 1898), S. 497--Appreciation of evidence--At bail stage only tentative assessment of record is permitted and deeper appreciation of evidence/material is not permitted--Offences charged (Sections 21 and 24 of P.E.C.A) do not fall within prohibitory clause of Section 497, Cr.P.C.: being punishable up to five (05) years, but in such like cases where dignity and modesty of a person is at stakes, discretion for grant of bail has to be exercised cautiously specially when offence seriously affect whole society and impact is devastating not only for complainant but to his/her family which may ruin future life of victim--Record perused, which clearly depicts that victim herself captured most of pictures with petitioner--Section 21 of PECA attracts only when person is involved directly in sharing of any nude data in order to threat, harass and blackmail complainant, but in this case, no nude data of victim was ever being prepared, superimposed of shared by petitioner, therefore, attraction of Section 21 of PECA to extent of present petitioner is necessarily a matter of further inquiry--Technical report clearly reveals that mobile of complainant was sent for forensic analysis.

                                                                                             [Para 5] A

Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 (V of 1898)--

دفعہ 497 -- انسدادِ الیکٹرانک جرائم ایکٹ، 2016 (2016 کا ایکٹ نمبر 40)، دفعات 21 اور 24 -- ضمانت، منظور کرنا -- الزام -- متاثرہ کا اعتراض انگیز/برہنہ ڈیٹا دوسروں کو شیئر کرنا -- سپریم کورٹ آف پاکستان کے مطابق ضمانت کا مطلب ملزم کی بریت نہیں ہوتا بلکہ یہ محض سرکاری ایجنسیوں سے ضامنوں کی طرف حراست کی تبدیلی ہے، جو کہ ضمانتی مچلکے فراہم کرنے پر یہ ذمہ داری لیتے ہیں کہ ملزم کو جب اور جہاں بھی طلب کیا جائے پیش کریں گے -- تفتیش مکمل ہو چکی ہے اور پولیس کو مزید تفتیش کے لیے درخواست گزار کی ضرورت نہیں رہی -- وہ گرفتاری کے بعد سے سلاخوں کے پیچھے ہے -- درخواست گزار کو غیر معینہ مدت تک سلاخوں کے پیچھے رکھنے کی کوئی اخلاقی یا قانونی مجبوری موجود نہیں ہے، جو کہ بغیر مقدمے کی سزا کے مترادف ہوگا۔

----S. 497--Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act, 2016 (XL of 2016), Ss. 21 & 24--Bail, grant of--Allegation of--Shared objectionable/nude data of victim to others--Hon’ble Supreme Court of Pakistan that bail does not mean acquittal of accused but only change of custody from government agencies to sureties, who on furnishing bonds take responsibility to produce accused whenever and wherever required to be produced--The investigation is complete person of petitioner is no more required by police for further investigation--He is behind bars since his arrest--No moral or legal compulsion exists to keep petitioner behind bars for an indefinite period, which would amount to punishment without trial.                                                                   [Para 6 & 8] B & C

2008 SCMR 807 & 1996 SCMR 1845.

Mr. Muhammad Arslan Khan, Advocate for Petitioner.

Mr. Nadeem Ahmad Tarar, DAG for State.

Rao Abdul Qayyum Maqsoodi, Advocate for Complainant.

Date of hearing: 4.7.2023.

Order

Through instant criminal bail application, petitioner/accused Afzaal Afzal son of Muhammad Afzal, seeks post arrest bail in case FIR No. 52/2023, dated 10.05.2023, registered under Sections 21 and 24 of Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act, 2016 read with Sections 109/509, PPC, at Police Station F.I.A, Cybercrime Reporting Center, Multan.

2.       Precisely, the allegation contained in the FIR is that, the petitioner had developed friendship with the complainant’s sister, namely, Mst. Rabia Bibi and under the garb of friendship, the petitioner captured the nude/objectionable pictures/videos of the complainant’s sister deceitfully and thereafter he shared the objectionable content to his co-accused, so that they may make it viral on social media and internet; that later on the petitioner threatened for severe consequences in case the victim did not marry him; that since the victim had already engaged with her cousin and as such her elders refused; that subsequently the petitioner shared the objectionable/nude data of the victim to the complainant and his co-accused also shared the content to others; that the complainant along with respectable of the locality asked the petitioner to refrain from doing so, but he not only shared a forged Nikahnama from his Whatsapp No. 0300-8627185 to the complainant but also extended threats of causing damage to their reputation in the society and to cause death in case of initiation of criminal proceedings against him; that the petitioner further criminally intimidated in case of not giving him rishtaa while making the objectionable/nude pictures viral through social media and dishonor and to disgrace the victim and her family members in the society.

3.       I have heard the arguments and perused the record.

4.       Admittedly, the victim was in love relationship with the petitioner and was promised to be married with him and during conversations with the petitioner, the victim met with the petitioner many times with her free will and consent and she herself made several pictures with the petitioner in her own cellphone. During the course of inquiry, only cellphone of complainant was taken into possession but neither the cellphones of the victim, father of the victim and the witness who allegedly to receive the objectionable data/nude on their cellphones were taken into possession nor sent for their forensic analysis, which shows mala fide intention on the part of the complainant and makes the case of further inquiry. Moreover, no record/IP Logs, etc were ever summoned from the Whatsapp/tiktok Authorities by Investigating Agency to verify that the alleged social media apps were ever being created/used by the petitioner. During the course of 11-days physical remand of the petitioner, the Investigating Officer did not collect any incriminating material including alleged cellphone, social media accounts, objectionable data, nude material, fake Nikahnama which could suggest that the petitioner is guilty of the crime. It is also noticed that during physical remand, two mobile SIMs which were in the name of the petitioner allegedly to be used in the offence, were re-activated/shown to be recovered but the Whatsapp application of those alleged SIMs which were used in the alleged occurrence were never been recovered from the active or passive possession of the petitioner. It is also surfaced on record that the other Whatsapp numbers which are as per prosecution story involved in sharing the objectionable data/extending threats never been recovered from the possession of accused/petitioner neither those SIMS are in the name of the petitioner.

5.       At bail stage only tentative assessment of record is permitted and deeper appreciation of evidence/material is not permitted. The offences charged (Sections 21 and 24 of P.E.C.A do not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Cr.P.C. being punishable up to five (05) years, but in such like cases where dignity and modesty of a person is at stakes, the discretion for grant of bail has to be exercised cautiously specially when the offence seriously affect the whole society and the impact is devastating not only for the complainant but to his/her family which may ruin the future life of the victim. Record perused, which clearly depicts that the victim herself captured most of the pictures with the petitioner. Section 21 of PECA attracts only when the person is involved directly in sharing of any nude data in order to threat, harass and blackmail the complainant, but in this case, no nude data of the victim was ever being prepared, superimposed of shared by the petitioner, therefore, the attraction of Section 21 of PECA to the extent of present petitioner is necessarily a matter of further inquiry. Technical report dated 13.5.2023 clearly reveals that the mobile of complainant was sent for forensic analysis.

6.       Moreover, it has been held time and again by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Pakistan that bail does not mean acquittal of accused but only change of custody from government agencies to the sureties, who on furnishing bonds take responsibility to produce the accused whenever and wherever required to be produced. Reliance could be placed on case reported in Haji Muhammad Nazir vs. State (2008 SCMR 807).

7.       Before parting with this order, this Court finds it necessary to mention that all the observations recorded above are tentative assessment just for the disposal of bail petition and not intended to influence the mind of trial Court, which is free to appraise the evidence strictly in accordance with law and merits of the case as per law laid down in down in case reported as (1996 SCMR 1845).

8.       Furthermore, the investigation is complete. The person of the petitioner is no more required by the police for further investigation. He is behind the bars since his arrest. Nomoral or legal compulsion exists to keep the petitioner behind the bars for an indefinite period, which would amount to punishment without trial.

9.       Therefore, without further commenting upon the merits of the case, this petition is accepted and the petitioner is allowed post-arrest bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of
Rs. 2,00,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.

(A.A.K.)          Petition accepted