ADNAN HAFEEZ vs The STATE and another
The petitioner sought post-arrest bail in a case involving allegations of hacking login IDs of travel agencies to fraudulently issue international air tickets, an offense registered under the Electronic Transactions Ordinance 2002 and the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, a technical expert accused of orchestrating an international cybercrime scam, was entitled to bail. The Court held that the petitioner was not entitled to bail, noting that the prosecution had collected substantive evidence connecting him to the offense. The Court emphasized that cybercrimes are serious matters with potential international repercussions, and that even in cases not falling under the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, bail may be refused due to exceptional circumstances, such as the risk of evidence tampering or destruction. The key principle laid down is that the grant of bail is a judicial discretion, and being a non-convict does not automatically entitle an accused to bail, especially where the nature of the offense and the risk of interference with the investigation warrant detention.
- Can bail be refused in cases not falling under the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Does the status of being a non-convict automatically entitle an accused person to the grant of bail?
- Is the risk of tampering with evidence a valid ground for refusing bail in cybercrime cases?
- Section 36, Electronic Transactions Ordinance 2002
- Section 37, Electronic Transactions Ordinance 2002
- Section 420, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 109, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' ERUM SAJAD GULL, J.---Adnan Hafeez, petitioner seeks his bail after arrest in case FIR No,85/2015 dated 11.09.2015, offence under Sections 36/37 ETO 2002, read with Sections 420/109, P.P.C., registered at Police Station Cyber Crime Circle/FIA, Lahore.
2. The role attributed to the petitioner according to the FIR is that he along with his co-accused use to hack the login I.D's of different travel agencies and fraudulently issue air tickets.
3. Arguments heard. Record perused.
4. The petitioner is nominated in the FIR with a specific role. The offence is of a serious nature and depicts a mind boggling scam of an international level, which if not curbed and dealt with an iron hand, could have serious repercussions. According to the FIA, the offence committed is the first of its kind in the country.
5. To understand the offence, it is pertinent to briefly explain the facts of the case. Galileo Company is a United Kingdom based company, which is a provider of a software to travel agencies, through which it is possible for sale/purchase of air tickets via internet. Travel Port is the local company, which is the sole distributor of this international software. Local travel agents purchase this unique software from Travel Port and the technical expert of Travel Port installs this software for its clients and then provides them with a specific SSL I.D, after which connects them with the main server of Galileo in the United Kingdom.
6. The petitioner is a ,technical expert of this software and was an ex-employee of Travel Port. He used to install this software for different travel agencies, for which he used his laptops and several I.Ds of different travel agencies were saved on his laptops.
7. The complainant submitted a complaint with the FIA that the login I.D. Of his travel agency was hacked and fraudulently international air tickets were issued.
8. The Cyber Crime Circle FIA initiated an inquiry and representatives of Travel Port and Galileo were summoned. Mr. Coleman Alam of Galileo Company in United Kingdom gave the computer information, which were connecting to the Galileo's main server. On investigation, it was traced out from where the computers were operating.
9. The petitioner was apprehended red handed from the office of Amadeus Pakistan Pvt. Ltd, a travel agency, where he was working and from his possession, three laptops, mobile phone and one PTCL EVO Wingle were taken into custody by the FIA. The said laptops were sent to the Forensic Science Agency, from where it was proved that multiple SSL I.Ds assigned to different travel agents by Travel Port/Galileo were found in the recovered laptops of the petitioner. These SSL I.Ds can only be used by the authorized travel agents but were being illegally accessed by the laptops found in possession of the petitioner.
10. The prosecution has collected substantive evidence connecting the petitioner with the commission of the offence. There is an apprehension that if bail is granted to the petitioner, he will tamper with the evidence and even destroy it. The petitioner, being a technical expert, is the master mind of the gang, who have been hacking I.Ds of various travel agents. The lead to the other co- accused will be destroyed if the petitioner is allowed to get in contact with his co-accused and the hectic efforts of the FIA in tracing out the culprits of this serious scam will suffer a serious setback.
11. It has been held repeatedly by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan that Courts may refuse bail in cases not falling under the Prohibitory Clause of Section 497, Cr.P.C, if exceptional circumstances exist. And it will always be the discretion of the Court to determine whether an accused person deserves to be granted bail. Being a non-convict, will not in itself be a ground for grant of bail. Reliance is placed upon "Afzaal Ahmed v. The State, 2003 SCM R 573" and "Imtiaz Ahmed and another v. The State, PLD 1997 SC 545".
12. As all business dealings and transactions are done internationally through the internet, therefore, cyber-crime cannot be taken lightly and the legislature should consider enhancing the sentences for such crimes. Reliance is placed upon "Shahzad Ahmed v. The State through F.I.A.
Islamabad, 2010 SCM R 1221".
13. As reiterated above, this bail petition is dismissed, having no merit. It is made clear that the above findings are tentative in nature and shall have no bearing on the trial of the case.