Citation Name: 2024 YLR 1008 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Abdul Rehman vs State S

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

Citation Name: 2024 YLR 1008 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Abdul Rehman VS State S. 497---Prevention of Electronic Crimes act (XL of 2016), Ss. 21 & 24---Harming a person's reputation and privacy---Post-arrest bail, grant of---Evidentiary material against the accused, deficiency of---Prohibitory clause of the S. 497(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898, not attracted---allegations against the petitioners/accused (two in number) was that they intentionally exhibited and transmitted information harming the reputation and privacy of sister of the complainant---Validity---an internet protocol address (IP address) is a numerical label assigned to each device connected to a computer network that uses the internet protocol for communication---an IP address serves two principal functions of network interface identification and location addressing---In the present case, no request was made to the concerned companies (Meta/Facebook and Whatsapp) for providing the data so as to prima facie connect the petitioners with the commission of offences or to block the alleged account from disseminating the outrageous material---alleged offences of the Prevention of Electronic Crimes act, 2016 did not fall within the parameters of the prohibitory clause of S. 497(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 as the offences under Ss. 21 & 24 of the Prevention of Electronic Crimes act 2016, apart from fine, had been made punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to five years and three years respectively ; and grant of bail is a right and refusal is an exception in such like cases---Prosecution was not equipped with any evidentiary material to bring the case of the petitioners within the exception for refusing grant of bail---Petitioners were behind bars since their arrest, and were no more required by the Federal Investigation agency for further investigation---There was no proof available with the prosecution that the petitioners would either abscond or tamper with the evidence, hence further incarceration of the petitioners would serve no purpose at all---Bail was allowed to the petitioners, in circumstances.

Citation Name: 2024 YLR 1008 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Abdul Rehman vs State S — 2024 YLR 1008 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2024 YLR