2023 PLP 679 (SCMR)
SHAHZAD — Petitioner Versus The STATE and another — Respondents
| Citation | 2023 PLP 679 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Sardar Tariq Masood, Amin-ud-Din Khan and Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi, JJ |
| Parties | SHAHZAD — Petitioner Versus The STATE and another — Respondents |
| Primary Law | (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2023 PLP 679 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2023 PLP 679 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Sardar Tariq Masood, Amin-ud-Din Khan and Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2023 PLP 679 (SCMR) (SHAHZAD — Petitioner Versus The STATE and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Arshad Hussain Yousafzai, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner.
- Ch. Zafar Ali Warraich, Advocate Supreme Court along with Complainant in person.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal against the order dated 15.07.2022 passed by the Islamabad High Court, Islamabad in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 805-B of 2022)
S. 497
Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act (XL of 2016), Ss. 21 & 24
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 109 & 509
Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 185(3)
Transmitting objectionable photographs and videos through mobile phone
Although the petitioner was nominated in the FIR with the specific allegation of transmitting objectionable photographs and videos of the complainant but the record revealed that the sim used for the purpose of transmitting the said photographs and videos was owned by person "A", co-accused, and according to "A" he forgot his sim at the house of person "T", another co-accused
Both "A" and "T" were brother-in-law of the complainant
Although according to the investigation, the mobile phone in which the said objectionable photographs and videos were available, was recovered from the possession of the accused but according to the prosecution while transmitting the said objectionable photographs and videos the sim owned by "A" was used
Bail had already been granted to "A" and in such eventuality, the accused had become entitled to the concession of bail on the principle of rule of consistency
Even otherwise, the accused had no previous criminal record
Petition for leave to appeal was converted into appeal and allowed, and accused was granted bail.
S. 497
Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 185(3)
Offences not falling within the prohibition contained in section 497, Cr.P.C.
In such like cases grant of bail is a rule and refusal is an exception. Tariq Bashir and 5 others v. The State PLD 1995 SC 34 ref. Malik Javaid Iqbal, Additional Attorney General, Huma Khalil, SI and Waseem Sikandar, SI for the State. Ch. Zafar Ali Warraich, Advocate Supreme Court along with Complainant in person.
Judgment & Decree
SARDAR TARIQ MASOOD J.
Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.1831/2022. For reasons set out in the application for condonation of delay, the same is allowed and the delay of 63 days in filing of the petition is condoned. Criminal Petition No.1353/2022.
2. The petitioner has impugned the order dated 15.07.2022 of the Islamabad High Court, whereby post arrest bail was declined to him in case FIR No.58 dated 09.05.2022 registered at Police Station FIA/CCRC, Islamabad, under sections 21 and 24 of the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act, 2016 read with sections 109 and 509 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860.
3. Although the petitioner was nominated in the above said FIR with the specific allegation of transmitting the objectionable photographs and videos of the complainant but the record reveals that the 'sim' used for the purpose of transmitting the said photographs and videos was owned by one Abid Mehmood, co-accused, and according to Abid Mehmood he forgot his 'sim' at the house of Tayyab, another co-accused. Abid Mehmood and Tayyab both are brothers-in-law of the complainant. Although according to the investigation, the mobile phone in which the said objectionable photographs and videos were available, was recovered from the possession of the petitioner but according to the prosecution while transmitting the said objectionable photographs and videos the 'sim' owned by Abid Mehmood was used. Bail has already been granted to Abid Mehmood and in that eventuality, the petitioner has become entitled to the concession of bail on the principle of rule of consistency. Even otherwise, the offences mentioned in the FIR are out of prohibition contained in section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 and in such like cases grant of bail is a rule and refusal is an exception, as laid down in the case of Tariq Bashir and 5 others v. The State (PLD 1995 SC 34); besides, the petitioner has no previous criminal record.
4. For the forgoing, this petition is converted into an appeal and the same is allowed. The petitioner Shehzad is admitted to post-arrest bail subject to his furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs.200,000/- (two hundred thousand only) with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court. MWA/S-4/SC Bail granted.