IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(APPELLATE JURISDICTION) 
 
 
PRESENT: 
MR. JUSTICE UMAR ATA BANDIAL  
MR. JUSTICE AMIN-UD-DIN KHAN 
MR. JUSTICE SAYYED MAZAHAR ALI AKBAR NAQVI 
 
 
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.863-L OF 2021 
(Against the order dated 01.06.2021 of the 
Lahore High Court, Lahore passed in Crl. Misc. 
No.29729-B/2021) 
 
 
Muhammad Ajmal 
…Petitioner(s) 
Versus 
The State and another 
…Respondent(s) 
 
For the Petitioner(s): 
Mr. Shahid Azeem, ASC 
 
 
For the State: 
Mr. Tariq Rafiq Bhandera, ASC 
Um-e-Habiba, S.I.  
 
 
For the Complainant(s): 
Mr. Seerat Hussain Naqvi, ASC 
 
 
Date of Hearing: 
15.11.2021 
 
ORDER 
 
SAYYED MAZAHAR ALI AKBAR NAQVI, J.- Through the instant 
petition under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of 
Pakistan, 1973, the petitioner has assailed the order dated 
01.06.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge of the Lahore High 
Court, Lahore with a prayer to grant  post arrest bail in case 
registered vide FIR No. 51 dated 14.07.2020 under Sections 20, 21 
and 24 of Pakistan Electronic Crime Act, 2016 at Police Station FIA 
Cyber Crime Circle, Lahore in the interest of safe administration of 
criminal justice. 
2. 
 
As per the contents of the crime report, it is alleged by 
the complainant that the petitioner along with co-accused kidnapped 
his wife on 13.11.2019 and captured her objectionable videos by 
intoxicating her, a criminal case for kidnapping was lodged at Police 
Station Factory Area, Lahore. It was further alleged that the 
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.863-L OF 2021 
-: 2 :-
petitioner and his co-accused have threatened and harassed him by 
sharing the video through Whatsapp from Mobile No.0305-7016978 
to his mobile No.0300-2927130. The petitioner and his co-accused 
have also threatened the complainant to withdraw the case, 
otherwise they would upload the video globally. 
3. 
 
At the very outset it has been contended by the learned 
counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has been falsely roped in 
this case against the actual facts and circumstances. Contends that 
the objectionable videos were shared by co-accused to whom 
concession of bail has already been extended. Further contends that 
the bail to the co-accused was granted on the basis of statement 
made by the victim herself. Contends that following the rule of 
consistency, the petitioner also deserves to be released on bail. 
Contends that there is no denial to this fact that the instrument used 
for sharing the video exists against the name of the co-accused. 
Contends that the case of the petitioner is at better footings as 
compared to the co-accused, therefore, he is entitled for concession 
of bail. 
4. 
 
On the other hand, the learned Law Officer, assisted by 
the learned counsel for the complainant, opposed the grant of bail on 
the ground that during the course of investigation the petitioner was 
found to be with the co-accused who had acted under the patronage 
and instructions of the petitioner and he was declared as the main 
culprit. Therefore, the case of the petitioner is distinguishable from 
the co-accused and as such he does not deserve any concession of 
bail.  
5. 
 
We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and 
gone through the record.  
 
 
There is no denial to this fact that it is very unfortunate 
that this occurrence had taken place wherein objectionable videos 
were shared setting the law in motion while attracting the provisions 
of Sections 20, 21 and 24 of Pakistan Electronic Crime Act, 2016. 
During the course of arguments, it transpired that the co-accused of 
the petitioner has already been granted bail on the basis of 
concessional statement made by the victim herself. Apart from this, 
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.863-L OF 2021 
-: 3 :-
we have noted that the maximum punishment under the statute is 
05 years which do not attract the prohibitory clause of Section 497 
Cr.P.C. The learned Law Officer frankly conceded that the 
instrument used for sharing the objectionable video was of the co-
accused and as such the case of the petitioner is at better footings 
as compared to co-accused. As the co-accused of the petitioner had 
already been enlarged on bail, therefore, the petitioner is entitled for 
the concession of post-arrest bail on the plea of consistency. 
Reliance is placed on the case reported as Muhammad Fazal @ Bodi 
Vs. The State (1979 SCMR 9) wherein this Court held as under:-  
“Without going into the merits of the case and the 
various rulings mentioned in the petition for leave to 
appeal 
requiring 
our 
consideration 
and 
interpretation, we think that the petitioner should 
be released on bail on the principle of requirement 
of consistency in the same case and for the similar 
reason that the co-accused to whom a role similar 
to that of the petitioner was attributed had been so 
released by another learned Judge of the same 
High Court.” 
 
6. 
 
Prima facie there are sufficient grounds to take into 
consideration that the case of the petitioner is fully covered by 
Section 497(2) Cr.P.C. calling for further inquiry to his guilt. 
Consequently, we convert this petition into appeal, allow it, set aside 
the impugned order and admit the petitioner to bail subject to his 
furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.100,000/- with one surety in 
the like amount to the satisfaction of learned Trial Court.  
 
 
JUDGE 
 
 
 
JUDGE 
 
 
 
JUDGE 
Lahore, the 
15th of November, 2021 
Approved for reporting 
Waqas Naseer/* 
