2025 PLP 2666 (YLR)

Khadim Hussain Tunio, J.

Through captioned criminal bail application, applicant Shahnawaz son of Muhamad Ramzan, by caste Soomro, seeks post-arrest bail in FIR No.32/2022, registered at Police Station FIA Cyber Crime Reporting Sukkur, for the offences punishable under sections 3, 4 and 14 of PECA 2016, read with 419, 420, 468, 471 and 109 P.P.C. Prior to this application, he had approached the learned Sessions Judge, Sukkur with the same plea, but it was declined vide order dated 29.01.2025.

2. The allegation against the applicant/accused pertains to the commission of financial fraud upon the complainant, Mohsin Ali. It is alleged that the applicant, by creating and operating a fictitious Facebook account impersonating MPA Nasir Hussain Shah, contacted the complainant via Facebook Messenger and falsely represented that he could secure a government position for him in the Sindh Reads Department. In furtherance of this deception, the applicant allegedly demanded a sum of Rs.500,000/- and provided various WhatsApp numbers to the complainant for communication and transfer of funds. Relying upon this representation, the complainant is stated to have transferred an amount of Rs.400,000/- through multiple transactions. Subsequently, the complainant's contact number was blocked.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant has contended that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated; that no incriminating material has been recovered from the possession of the applicant; that the allegations against the applicant are verbatim of the complainant; that no private witness has been associated by the complainant during the arrest of the applicant and recovery of the alleged material from the applicant, and lastly that all the involved sections of the PECA Act, 2016, are bailable, while all the remaining sections do not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 P.P.C.

4. On the other hand, the learned Deputy Attorney General submitted that the applicant has cheated the complainant, as such the offence committed by the appellant is heinous and to the detriment of the society and law.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and have perused the record available before me.

6. Perusal of the record reveals that the name of the applicant does not appear in the FIR and that he was subsequently implicated by the complainant in his supplementary statement. There is no direct or detailed evidence on record that attributes any specific act to the applicant which would justify his continued incarceration. The prosecution's case is premised on general allegations of online freud committed via social media platforms, including WhatsApp, primarily involving the fraudulent offer of employment within the Roads Department. The alleged offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.P.C. It appears rather implausible that a person would transfer such a significant amount of money to another city without any verification, and while it is arguable that such fraudulent schemes often exploit individuals in vulnerable positions, it remains a matter for the trial court to determine whether the amount was, in fact, sent for the purposes claimed. The case has already been challaned and the applicant is no longer required for investigative purposes. There is no material on record to suggest that he is a flight risk or that he is likely to misuse the concession of bail if granted. Moreover, the prosecution has failed to place on record any cogent material to demonstrate that his release on bail would, in any way, prejudice the ongoing trial. While the fraudulent use of social media platforms is indeed a serious and growing concern, it must be borne in mind that the applicant, like every accused person, is entitled to the presumption of innocence unless proven guilty. This principle, being a cornerstone of our criminal justice system, ensures that the rights of the accused are protected until such time as guilt is established through due process. It is trite law that the right to personal liberty, enshrined in Article 10-A of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, cannot be curtailed without cogent and compelling reasons. The superior courts have consistently held that liberty is a fundamental right, and any deprivation thereof must rest upon clear and convincing evidence establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Reference is made to the case of Abbas Raza v. The State through P.G. Punjab and others (2020 SCMR 1859). It is also worth noting that the ultimate conviction and punishment of an individual found guilty may serve as a corrective measure for an erroneous grant of bail. However, the unjust detention of an innocent individual cannot be remedied, even if they are later acquitted. This principle was enunciated in Manzoor and 4 others v. The State (PLD 1972 SC 81), where the Hon'ble Supreme Court emphasised the irreparable harm caused by wrongful incarceration. Given the above circumstances, the applicant, is entitled to the relief sought. The lack of specific allegations, absence of any evidence connecting him to cheating/fraud, and his fundamental right to liberty necessitate the grant of bail.

7. For the foregoing reasons, the applicant has successfully made out his case for grant of post-arrest bail. Accordingly, instant bail application was allowed and the applicant was admitted to post-arrest bail subject to furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs.100,000/-Rupees One Lac) and P.R bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court, vide short order dated 14.4.2025, and these are the reasons for the same.

8. Needless to mention that the observations made hereinabove are tentative in nature and would not influence the learned Trial Court while deciding the case of the applicant on merits. S-58/Sindh Bail granted.