Muneeb Riaz Versus State
This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by the petitioner, Muneeb Riaz, who was charged under Sections 20, 21, and 24 of the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act, 2016. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner, in retaliation for a divorce obtained before Rukhsati, edited photographs of the complainant’s sister and mother into nude images, shared them via WhatsApp, and threatened to upload them to social media. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to the concession of post-arrest bail despite the offences not falling within the prohibitory limb of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. The Lahore High Court dismissed the petition, holding that bail is not a universal rule and depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. The Court determined that the petitioner’s specific conduct—violating the dignity and privacy of the victims through the distribution of pornographic material—constituted an exceptional and extraordinary circumstance, thereby justifying the refusal of bail at this stage.
- Is the grant of bail in offences falling outside the prohibitory limb of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 a universal rule?
- Can the court refuse bail in non-prohibitory offences based on the specific facts and circumstances of the case?
- Does the distribution of edited nude photographs of victims constitute an exceptional circumstance justifying the denial of post-arrest bail?
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- 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 161, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
Order
Asjad Javaid Ghural, J .--- Through instant petition under Section 497 Cr.P.C., petitioner Muneeb Riaz has sought post arrest bail in case FIR No.57/2024 dated 29.07.2024, in respect of offence under Sections 20, 21 and 24 of the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act, 2016, registered at Police Station, FIA Cyber Crime Circle, Gujranwala.
2. Precisely, the prosecution story was that the complainant's sister was married with the petitioner but before Rukhsati, they obtained divorce from him through Court due to his bad character. It was alleged that the petitioner edited photographs of sister and mother of the complainant converting the same into their nude pictures, send the same to the complainant on his WhatsApp number, created a WhatsApp group and threatened them to upload the same on social media. Hence, this case was registered.
3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Law Officers appearing for the State assisted by learned counsel for the complainant and perused the record.
4. The petitioner is nominated in the crime report with the specific role of editing family pictures of sister and mother of the complainant and converted the same into nude one and send the same to their family with the threat to upload on social media for the public at large. The petitioner was arrested in this case on the same day i.e. 29.07.2024 and after inspection, his mobile phone was found containing nude edited pictures of sister and mother of the complainant, which was taken into possession and sent to the lab for forensic analysis and as per Initial Technical Analysis Report dated 30.07.2024, objectionable and edited content of the victim and pornographic material was found in the gallery, which were found to have been shared to phone number +923179364499 through WhatsApp. The petitioner was found fully involved in this occurrence during investigation based on technical report as well as other material in the statements of the witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. The petitioner has not only put the dignity and honour of the ladies at stake but also spoiled their lives.
5. Yes, the offence with which the petitioner has been charged, does not attract the prohibitory limb of Section 497 Cr.P.C. and in the offences not falling under the prohibition, the bail is granted as a rule in many a cases by the Apex Courts but it has never been considered as universal rule and compulsion over the Court rather it depends upon facts and circumstances of each case. Here in the instant case the petitioner has victimized not only a young girl in revenge of taking divorce before Rukhsti but also her mother and harmed their reputation and privacy explicating their images in the forum of edited nude photos and then shared the same to their closest and sensitive relative i.e. the brother/son. This fact alone makes case of the petitioner being exceptional and extra ordinary circumstance of the case for refusal of bail. Reliance is placed on case reported as 'Muhammad Siddique v. Imtiaz Begum and others' (2002 SCMR 442) and "Malik Muhammad Tahir v. The State and another (2022 SCMR 2040)". The same view was subsequently adopted in case titled 'Fakhar Zaman v. The State and another (2023 PCr.LJ 496) and 'Muhammad Haseeb v. The State and another (2024 PCr.LJ 1462) [Islamabad]. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner is not entitled to the concession of post arrest bail at this early stage.
In view of what has been discussed above, this petition is without any merit, the same stands dismissed.
JK/M-136/L Petition dismissed.