Muhammad Usman vs The State and another
This petition for post-arrest bail arises from a criminal case registered under the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act, 2016 and the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, involving allegations of harassment and the transmission of objectionable nude photographs via WhatsApp. The petitioner sought bail after being refused relief by the trial court. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to the concession of bail, given the nature of the offence and the argument that the charged offences did not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Peshawar High Court held that while bail in offences punishable by less than ten years of imprisonment is generally a rule, this is not an absolute right and remains subject to the facts and circumstances of each case. The Court found the allegations supported by evidence and the petitioner's own statement, noting the offence involved moral turpitude affecting society at large. Consequently, the Court dismissed the bail petition, establishing the principle that judicial discretion to deny bail may be exercised even in non-prohibitory offences where the circumstances justify such departure.
- Does the fact that an offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, create an absolute right to bail?
- Can a court deny bail in cases punishable by less than ten years imprisonment if the offence involves moral turpitude?
- Is the concession of bail subject to the specific facts and circumstances of each individual case?
- Section 3, Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act 2016
- Section 21, Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act 2016
- Section 24, Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act 2016
- Section 419, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
S.M.A TTIOUE SHAH, J. Petitioner Muhammad Usman stands charged in case F.I.R No.6 dated 06.11.2019 registered under sections 3/21/24 of Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act, 2016 read with section 419 PPC at police station Cyber Crime, FIA, D.I.Khan. He was refused the concession of bail by learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, D.I.Khan vide order dated 13.1 1.2019, hence the instant petition for the same relief
2. The prosecution story , in brief, is that on 08.8.2019, the respondent No.2 subm itted a written complaint to FIA authorities regarding objectionable pictu res and messages of harassment transmitted to her by the petitioner .
However , the Cyber Crime team, after recording the statement of complainan t, investigated the matter , took screenshots of objectionable pictures, messages as well as confirmation regarding the ownership of cell number of the petitioner and after permission from the competent authority , arrested the petitioner and registered the above F.I.R.
3. Arguments heard and record perused.
4. Perusal of the record reveals that objec tionable pictures which were uploaded through a cell phone on whatsapp were recovered from possession of the petitioner which stigmatized the honour of not only the complainant but her whole family . The petitioner also commi tted the offence of blackmailing by intentionally and publicly exhibiting, displaying and transmitting the nude photographs for the purpose of some illegitimate demands. The petitioner , in his statement, also did not deny the commission of offence. The offence is of moral turpitude which badly affects the society at large. The argument of learned counsel for the petitioner that the offence with which the petitioner is charged does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497 Cr.P.C and in such like cases, bail is a rule and refusal an exception, is of little help to him. No doubt, bail in offences punisha ble with less than ten 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 instant case, the allegation against the petitioner is not only supporte d by evidence but also his own statement, thus, I do not feel persuaded to extend discretionary jurisdiction in favour of the petitioner .
5. For the reasons mentioned above, the instant petition being devoid of substance is hereby dismissed. However , it is clarified that the observations made above being tentative in nature would not impact upon the fate of the trial.
Cited by 2 cases
- Muhammad Yousif vs The State 2025 SHC SUK 1623
- Fakhar Zaman vs The State and another 2023 PCRLJ 496