2022 PLP 526 (SCMR)
ABDUL REHMAN — Petitioner Versus The STATE and another — Respondents
| Citation | 2022 PLP 526 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Munib Akhtar and Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed, JJ |
| Parties | ABDUL REHMAN — Petitioner Versus The STATE and another — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2022 PLP 526 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2022 PLP 526 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Munib Akhtar and Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2022 PLP 526 (SCMR) (ABDUL REHMAN — Petitioner Versus The STATE and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Tariq Shah, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
(Against the order dated 22.10.2021 passed by the Peshawar High Court Peshawar in Cr. M. No.3206-P of 2021)
S. 497
Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act (XL of 2016), Ss. 3, 4 & 21
Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 185(3)
Cyber stalking, transmitting objectionable images of a woman
Plea of accused that offences alleged did not fall within prohibitory clause of S. 497, Cr.P.C.
Held, that ordinarily, upon conclusion of investigation in criminal cases falling outside the remit of "prohibition", motions for release on bail are favourably received, nonetheless, such practice is not without limitations
In the present case, privacy of a young lady had grievously been intruded to the utter embarrassment of her family; even her marriage went into peril
Incident was reported by her father-in-law and, thus, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the concurrent view of the Courts below in denying bail to the accused was correct
Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed, leave was declined and accused was refused bail. Sayyed Nayyab Hassan Gardezi, Deputy Attorney General with Tariq I.O. for the State.
Judgment & Decree
QAZI MUHAMMAD AMIN AHMED, J.
The petitioner is accused of having cyber stalked defamatory messages along with photographs of complainant's daughter in law to her husband; the matter was reported to the Federal Investigating Agency, pursuant whereto, in the wake of a detailed inquiry, devices transmitting the impugned communication were secured upon his disclosure that conclusively established his culpability as the source behind family's embarrassment. Attempts for post arrest bail failed lastly before a learned Judge-in-Chamber of the Peshawar High Court Peshawar vide impugned order dated 22.10.2021, leave to appeal wherefrom is being prayed for primarily on the ground that the offences complained do not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 and investigation being complete there is no justification to depart from the rule.
2. Heard. Record perused.
3. Ordinarily, upon conclusion of investigation in criminal cases falling outside the remit of "prohibition" motions for release on bail are favourably received, nonetheless, the practice is not without limitations. In the present case, privacy of a young lady has grievously been intruded to the utter embarrassment of her family; even her marriage went into peril. The incident was reported by her father-in-law and, thus, in the facts and circumstances of the case, we do not feel persuaded, in our discretion, by the submission made at the bar so as to take a different view than concurrently taken by the Courts below. Petition fails. Leave declined. However, the learned trial Court is directed to expeditiously proceed with the trial so as to conclude it within a period of four months. Investigating Officer, in attendance, is directed to ensure presence of witnesses on the date fixed for recording of evidence. MWA/A-10/SC Bail refused.