Usman Bin Mehmood vs The State & another
The petitioner sought post-arrest bail in a criminal case registered under the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act, 2016, involving allegations of cyberstalking, unauthorized dissemination of intimate images, and coercion. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail despite the serious nature of the allegations and the existence of technical evidence linking him to the offense. The Lahore High Court held that while bail in offenses punishable by less than ten years imprisonment is generally the rule, it remains a discretionary concession that courts may deny based on the specific facts and circumstances of a case. The Court determined that the petitioner's actions—betraying trust, exposing the prosecutrix to public ridicule through the internet, and engaging in flagrant intrusion of privacy—constituted sufficient grounds to deny bail. The Court emphasized that the argument regarding the non-bailable nature of the offenses did not mandate bail as a matter of right. Consequently, the bail petition was dismissed, with a directive for the trial court to conclude proceedings expeditiously within four months.
- Is the grant of bail in offenses punishable by less than ten years imprisonment an absolute right or a discretionary concession?
- Can a court deny bail in a non-bailable offense despite the statutory framework?
- Does the existence of technical evidence linking an accused to cyber-related offenses justify the denial of post-arrest bail?
- Section 20, Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act 2016
- Section 21, Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act 2016
- Section 24, Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act 2016
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
Usman Bin Mehmood, petitioner herein, seeks admission to post arrest bail; he is accused in a criminal case registered vide FIR No.77 dated 27-7-2017 with Police Station Cyber Crime Circle NR-IIIC, FIA Lahore under Sections 20, 21 & 24 of the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act, 2016 on the complaint of Raees Shah Muhammad; it is alleged that he carried on with complainant's wife Aqeela Rehman PW and by taking advantage thereof, managed intimate stills as well as videos, subsequently disseminated by him through his email; the impugned material went viral and it is prosecution case that the petitioner coerced the complainant to pronounce divorce upon his wife. The case was investigated with the technical assistance provided by an I.T. expert who scientifically confirmed that objectionable material was generated by a cell phone with Subscriber Identity Module bearing No.0308-8712871 subscribed by no other than the petitioner himself; he conspicuously figures in graphic postures alongside the lady, views accessible to all and sundry.
2. Heard. Record perused.
3. Argument that the petitioner is entitled to concession of bail as the offences scheduled as non-bailable do not attract the bar contained under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 is beside the mark; no doubt, bail in offences punishable with less than 10-years of imprisonment is ordinarily granted as a rule, however, the concession is to be extended, having regard to the facts and circumstances of each case and in appropriate cases, the Court may justifiably depart from the rule to deny the favour. In the present case, allegation against the petitioner, supported by technical evidence is that he by betraying the trust reposed by the prosecutrix exposed her on the internet and shared indecent images not only with her better half but with others as well; it is a flagrant intrusion into privacy that brings a young lady into perennial embarrassment and ridicule within and outside family fold. Reference to prosecutrix's volitional intimacy with the petitioner as a contributory factor tantamount to add insult to injury, thus, I do not feel persuaded to receive petitioner's plea with favour in my discretionary jurisdiction. However, it is clarified that observations made hereinabove being tentative would not impact upon the fate of the trial, to be concluded expeditiously, strictly in accordance with law on the strength of evidence before the learned trial Magistrate with a convenient dispatch preferably within a period of four months. Crl. Misc. No.69371-B/2-10 fails. Dismissed.