IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN
(APPELLA TE JURISDICTION)
MR. JUSTICE MAZHAR A LAM KHAN MIANKHEL
MR. JUSTICE SAY Y ED MAZAHAR ALl AKI3AR NAQVI
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 978 OF 2021
(Against the order dated 15.07.2021 of the Peshawar High Court,
Peshawar passed in Cr.M(BA) No. 748-Al2021)
Fakhar Zaman
Petitioner(s)
Versus
The State through D.A. G. and another
Respondent(s)
For the Petitioner(s): 
Mr. Muhammad Nawaz Khan, ASC
Syed Rifaqat Hussain Shah, AOR
For the State: 
Syed Nayyab Hussain Gardezi, DAG
Sycda Pakeeza, 51 FM
For the Complainant(s): 
Mr. Muhammad Junaid Alchtar, ASC
Date of Hearing: 17.09.2021
ORDER
SAY Y ED MAZAHAR ALl AKBAR NAQVI, J. This petition under Article
185(3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 has
been filed against the impugned order dated 15.07.2021 passed by the
learned Peshawar High Court, Peshawar whereby the post-arrest bail
of the petitioner was declined.
2. As per the contents of the crime report registered vide FiR
No. 1512021 dated 03.06.2021 under Sections 20121124 of Prevention
of Electronic Crime Act, 2016 and Section 109 PPC at Police Station
Cyber Crime Reporting Center (CCRC) FM, Abbottabad, it is alleged that
the petitioner was instrumental in posting photographs of the
complainant using cellular device and as such caused sexual
harassment to the complainant. During the course of investigation, the
petitioner was taken into custody on 08.06.2021 and as such he is
behind the bars. He applied for post-arrest bail which was declined by
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 978 OF 2021 
-. 2 -
the learned Trial Court. The same relief was also declined to him by the
learned High Court vide impugned order.
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
from the bare reading of the accusation against the petitioner, no case
of sexual harassment is made out. Further contends that the petitioner
is behind the bars since more than 03 months and the maximum
punishment under the statute for the offence under which the petitioner
is charged is 05 years. Lastly it is contended that as the offence does
not fall within the prohibitory clause, therefore, the petitioner is entitled
for concession of bait prayed for.
4.
On the other hand, the learned Law Officer, assisted by
the learned counsel for the complainant, has contended that it is a
crime against the society and such like people are not entitled to any
concession. Contends that the lfe of womenfolk is at stake because of
the act of the petitioner. Further contends that the trend of sexual
harassment is at rise in the society, therefore, it has to be curbed with
iron hand.
S. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and
gone through the record.
There is no denial to this fact that this Court being the
ultimate court of law has to decide the cases keeping in view the
dictates of justice in order to establish safe administration of criminal
justice. No doubt there is allegation of sexual harassment which has
been made on the basis of sharing certain photographs on social media.
The trend of such like activities undeniably is at the verge of rise which
clearly shows concerns towards the downfall of the society, but at the
same time, a duty is cast upon the court to see whether from the facts
and circumstances the case of bail is made out. To resolve this issue,
we undesirably asked the Inve.s tigating officer to show us the material
collected during the course of investigation. We have observed that
there are certain photographs which could be termed as close to nudity
but those are not recognizable. The other photographs are in full attire
without any question of immorality. This aspect persuaded us to grant
post-arrest bail to the petitioner, as he is behind the bars since more
than 03 months and this issue can be resolved by the Trial Court after
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 978 OF 2021 
-:3:-
recording of evidence more authoritatively. As the liberty of a person is
a precious right which has been guaranteed, therefore, we are
persuaded to grant post-arrest bail to the petitioner subject to his
furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.200, 000/- (rupees two hundred
thousand) with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the
Trial Court. Resultantly, this petition is converted into appeal and
U 
allowed and the impugned order is set aside.
JUDGE
Islamabad. the 
JUDG
1711, of September, 2021
XX approved for reporting
Waqas Naseer/*