Case Details

Citation(s)
2025 SLG 869 2025 SLD 869 = 2025 PLCRLJ 526
Sindh High Court
Criminal Bail Application No. 2264 of 2023, decided on 22nd December, 2023.
Before Omar Sial, J
Deedam Gul Phulpoto for Applicant. Altaf Ahmed Sahar, Assistant Attorney General along with Aijaz Ali Kalwar, Assistant Director (Legal), FIA and P.I. Wazir Ahmed Bhutto for the State. Sardar Abdul Hameed for the Complainant.

SAMIULLAH---Applicant

VERSUS

The STATE---Respondent

Law: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)

Section: 497,156,196

Law: Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act, 2016

Section: XL,9,10,11

Law: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)

Section: 295A,295B,295C,298A,109

(a)    Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898 )-------Ss. 497 & 156---Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act ( XL of 2016 ), Ss. 9, 10 & 11---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 295-A, 295-B, 295-C, 298-A & 109--Blasphemous contents on social media forums---Bail, grant of---Investigation not conducted by prescribed officer---Effect---Complainant wrote a letter to the F.I.A. stating that he became aware that a Facebook page promotes blasphemous content through a WhatsApp group ; he first joined the Facebook page with a pseudo-name and then joined the WhatsApp group---Section 156A, of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898, (Cr.P.C) requires that no police officer below the rank of a Superintendent of Police shall investigate the offence against any person alleged to have been committed by him under S.295C of the Penal Code, 1860---In the present case, the investigation was done by an inspector, although it seems that a deputy director may have been involved in the investigation later---Entire inquiry and investigation was done by an inspector---A deputy director was asked to investigate after realizing that the law had been breached---The "investigation" by the deputy director was restricted to re-recording what the F.I.A. personnel had told the inspector earlier---There was a reason why the Cr.P.C stipulated that for offences under S.295-C, P.P.C., a senior officer must conduct the investigation---Legislature realized the importance of the offence and its potential to arouse emotions---A senior officer is expected to look at the case more wholly, professionally and with greater wisdom---In the present case, the deputy director rubber-stamped everything the inspector had done---The entire investigation was conducted stereo-typically and mechanically without an element of professionalism---The stipulation in law might have been followed in word but certainly not in spirit--The F.I.A. took an extremely casual approach without realizing the issue's sensitivity and gravity---Applicant was admitted to post-arrest bail, in circumstances.(b)    Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)-------Ss. 497 & 196---Prevention of Electronic…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register