The petitioner , namely Isba Habib, throu gh the instant petition seeks post arrest bail in case FIR No. 8, dated 11.2.2020, registered at P.S. FIA C.C.R. C, Lahore offences under Sections 20, 21 & 24 of PECA r/w Sections 420/109, PPC.
2. There is yet another written request for adjournment on behalf of learned counsel for the complainant. The said request has vehemently been opposed by learned counsel for the petitioner on the ground that there is no valid reason to adjourn this bail petition for indefinite period on the repeated requests of learned counsel for the complainant. I have noted that this post arrest bail petition was filed before this Court on 12.3.2020 and thereafter a number of adjournments have already been granted to the complainant party in this case. On 19.3.2020 learned proxy counsel after filing power of attorney on behalf of the complainant sought an adjournment due to non- availability of learned principal counsel for the complainant and on his request the case was adjournment for 27.3.2020 with the clear understanding that no further adjournment shall be granted in this case. On 27.3.2020, again a written request for adjournment was made by learned counsel for the complainant. The said request was opposed by learned counsel for the complainant on the ground that on the previous date of hearing i.e. 19.3.2020 this case was adjourned on the request of learned proxy counsel for the complainant with the clear understanding that no further adjournment shall be granted in this case. However , in the interest of justice, on the previous date of hearing, i.e. 27.3.2020, again the case was adjourned for today's date of hearing i.e. 7.4.2020 while giving last and final opportunity to the complainant to make arrangements for arguments in this petition. It was, however , clarified that in case of failure to make arrangeme nt to make arguments on this petition by the complainant, the same shall be decided on the basis of available record. The instant adjournment application has been filed by learned counsel for the complainant, on the ground that due to the prevailing situation created by pandemic coronavirus learned counsel for the complainant is on general adjournment from 28.3.2020 till 12.4.2020 but it is noteworthy that the above mentioned general adjournment is not applicable on the cases fixed by the Court and because the instant case was fixed by the Court, therefore, the said general adjournment is not applicable on the instant petition.
Moreover , learned counsel for the complainant did not appear before the Court on 19.3.2020 i.e. before the date mentioned in his application for general adjournment.
3. In the light of above, there is substance in the objection of learned counsel for the petitioner and there is no valid reason to keep on adjourning this post arrest bail petition of a female for indefinite period on the repeated requests of learned counsel for the complainant. Even otherwise it is a state case and learn ed Assistant Attorney-General is ready to argue the same, therefore, written request for adjournment filed by learned counsel for the complainant is hereby turned down and I proceed to decide the instant petition on the basis of available record and after hearing arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner , and learned Assistant Attorney General.
4. As per brief allegations levelled in the FIR Ibrar Hussain Bukhari (complainant) is an overseas Pakistani residing in Japan and Peru. Mst. Isbah Habib Ullah (petitioner) and Mst. Treeza Riaz Masih (co-accused) used to come to the house of the complainant in different gatherings. Mst. Treeza Riaz Masih (co-accused) offered a juice to the complainant in one of the gatherings at his house and he (complainant) went senseless. Mst. Treeza Riaz Masih (co-accused) deceitfully captured his naked video and later on sent the same to his (complainant's) mobile number from a Dubai number . The said Mst. Treeza Riaz Masih (co-accused) along with Muhammad Iftikhar Ali alias Joji (co-accused) started to blackmail the complainant that if the complainant would not pay them Rupees Fifty Crore then the objectionable video of the complainant shall be put on the internet and made viral. The complainant further alleged that Mst. Isbah Habib Ullah (petitioner) was master mind behind the abovementioned occurrence, who also shared a poster consisting fake allegatio ns and threats against the complainant through her mobile number . The petitioner also threatened the complainant of dire consequences. Eventually a raid was conducted at Office No. 5, 3rd Floor , Shalimar Plaza, Moon Market, Lahore. The petitioner and Muhammad Iftikhar Ali alias Joji (co-accused) were present in the above mentioned office. They were apprehended by the FIA Authorities. Two mobile phones were recovered from their possession. The alleged SIM No. 0323-9338366 was found active in the mobile recovered from the petitioner . The objectionable naked videos of the complainant were found stored in the mobiles of the petitioner and Muhammad Iftikhar Ali alias Joji (co-accused). Muhammad Iftikhar All alias Joji (co-accused) confessed before the FIA Authorities that the objectionable videos of the complainant were shared by the petitioner on his mobile phone. The petitioner also disclosed before the raiding party that she shared the above mentioned videos of the complainant with Muhamma d Iftikhar Ali alias Joji (co-accused) and they used to explo it the image of the complainant. Hence, the above mentioned FIR.
5. Arguments heard. Record perused.
6. The petitioner is a female. The offences mentioned in the FIR do not fall within the ambit of Prohibitory Clause of Section 497 of Cr.P.C. and grant of bail in such like cases is a rule while refusal is an exception. The learned Assistant Attorney-General has conceded on instructions that no other FIR stands registered against the petitioner .
It is further noteworthy that the allegation of giving any intoxicated material at the time of preparing naked videos of the complainant has not been levelled against the petitioner and the said allegation has been levelled against Mst.
Treeza Riaz Masih (co-accused). No material which can cause intoxication has been recovered from the possession of the petitioner during the investigation of this case. Similarly the allegation of preparation of naked/objectionable video of the complainant has also not been levelled against the petitioner and the said allegation has been levelled against Mst. Treeza Riaz Masih (co-accused). It is further noteworthy that the demand of Rupees Fifty Crore and threat of making viral the video of the complainant in case of non-payment of said amount was also levelled against Mst. Treeza Riaz Masih (co-accused) and Muhammad Iftikhar Ali alias Joji (co- accused). It was simply mentioned in the FIR that the petitioner extended threats of dire consequences to the complainant but the allegation of making demand of any amount from the complainant has not been levelled against the petitioner . It is further noteworthy that the above referred Muhammad Iftikhar Ali alias Joji (co-accused) who statedly demanded amount from the complainant has already been granted post-arrest bail by the learned Judicial Magistrate Section-30, Lahore, vide order , dated 06.03.2020 Insofar as the contention of learned Assistant Attorney General as to the confessional statement of the , petitioner and Muhammad Iftikhar Ali alias Joji (co- accused) before the FIA Authorities while in custody is concerned, it is by now well settled that confession of an accused/co-accused before the police/arr esting authorities while in custody is inadmissible in evidence. Reliance in this respect may be placed on the cases of 'Alam Zeb another vs. The State and others' (PLD 2014 Supreme Court 760) & 'Raja Muhammad Younas vs. The State' (2013 SCMR 669). As mentioned earlier the offences mentioned in the FIR do not fall within the ambit of prohibitory clause of Section 497, Cr.P.C. and grant of bail in such like cases is a rule while refusal is an exception. No exceptional ground has been pointed but by the learned Assistant Attorney-General to refuse bail to the petitioner , therefore, while keeping in view the law laid down in the cases of Zafar Iqbal vs Muhammad Anwar and others' (2009 SCMR 1488 ) & 'Muhammad Tanveer vs The State and another' (PLD 2017 Supreme Court 733) ordaining that where a case falls within the non-prohibitory clause of Section 497 of, Cr.P.C., the conc ession of granting bail must be favourably considered and should only be declined in exceptional cases, this petition is allowed and the petitioner is admitted to post arrest bail subject to his furnishing the bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 200,000/-(Rupees two hundred thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.