Muhammad Ashraf vs The State & another
The petitioner, Muhammad Ashraf, sought post-arrest bail in a case registered under sections 20, 21, and 24 of the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act, 2016 and sections 420, 500, and 109 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, on allegations of cyber-communication, creating a fake Facebook ID, disseminating graphic exposures of the prosecutrix, and soliciting monetary and carnal favours. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to post-arrest bail, particularly when offences did not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. The Lahore High Court held that bail can be justifiably declined in appropriate cases even for offences falling outside the prohibitory clause. The court ruled that the petitioner's involvement was supported by forensic stills generated from secured devices, and volitional intimacy of the prosecutrix could not serve as a defence for severe misconduct and intrusion into privacy. Consequently, the bail petition was dismissed.
- Can post-arrest bail be declined for offences falling outside the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898?
- Does the volitional intimacy of a prosecutrix serve as a valid legal defence against charges of criminal betrayal and intrusion into privacy?
- Whether an accused can claim post-arrest bail as a matter of right merely because the charged offences do not attract the prohibitory clause?
- 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 420, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 500, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 109, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
Muhammad Ashraf, petitioner herein, seeks admission to post arrest bail; he is accused in a case registered with Cyber Crime Circle FIA Lahore under sections 20, 21 & 24 of the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act, 2016 read with sections 420, 500 & 109 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860. According to the complainant, her daughter Sobia Bibi was allured into a cyber-communication by the petitioner; it graduated into a more intimate liaison with frequent meetings culminating into prosecutrix's graphic exposure, captured by the petitioner, subsequently disseminated through a fake Facebook I.D; it is prosecution's case that the petitioner confronted her with his betrayal to solicit favours, monetary as well as carnal, leaving the family with no option but to share the dilemma with the Federal Investigation Agency. As the investigation progressed, devices secured by the Investigating Officer generated porno graphic images, shockingly abhorrent, depicting the couple in most obscene physical configurations.
2. Heard. Record perused.
3. The petitioner unmistakably figures with the prosecutrix in the stills generated by the Investigating Officer from the medium secured during investigation and as such argument that these have been manipulated to frame him in the crime is preposterous to say the least; for the family, it is too heavy a price to foot and for no apparent purpose but to incur a disgustingly perennial embarrassment. Prosecutrix's naive volitional intimacy cannot be pleaded as a defence for a most grievous misconduct based upon a criminal betrayal resulting into unmitigated intrusion into a woman's privacy. Similarly, petitioner cannot claim bail as of right merely on the ground that offences complained do not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. It is by now well settled that in appropriate cases bail can be justifiably declined in offences falling outside the prohibition; in the present case, it can be withheld without being unconscionable. Crl. Misc. No. 220033-B of 2018 fails; petition dismissed. Needless to observe that observations recorded hereinabove being tentative/issue specific shall not impact upon the fate of the case, to be decided by the learned trial Court on the strength of evidence.