Karachi court grants bail to content creator in Peca defamation case

KARACHI: A judicial magistrate in Karachi has allowed post-arrest bail for a social media content creator who had been taken into custody in a case alleging online defamation under the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act (Peca).

Judicial Magistrate (West) Inaamullah Phulpoto ordered the release of Abdul Lateef Waar against a surety of Rs50,000 along with a personal recognisance bond. Waar was arrested by Surjani Town police in May after property dealer Singar Ali filed a complaint.

According to the first information report, the complainant named four men, including Waar, and accused them of posting false and defamatory material on social media about under-construction buildings on plots and houses linked to him. The complaint alleged that the posts harmed his reputation and caused business losses.

Court cites jurisdiction and investigation delays

In a detailed order, the magistrate noted that the matter had been registered under Peca, a law that does not fall within the jurisdiction of local police. The court said it had already instructed police during the remand proceedings to send the case to the competent authority, the National Cyber Crime Investigation Agency (NCCIA).

The order said the case had been marked by repeated delays in the investigation, multiple remand hearings, late transfer of the inquiry, and repeated absence of the relevant officials, which led to adjournments. The magistrate further recorded that even by June 4, the NCCIA had not received the case file and that the matter had only recently been assigned to the current investigating officer.

The court also held that the NCCIA and the state prosecutor were unable to show why Waar still needed to remain in custody. On that basis, and in light of established bail principles, the magistrate found him entitled to post-arrest bail.

Questions of evidence still unresolved

In the order, the court observed that the prosecution had not yet submitted a final report or challan before the court.

“It is also significant that no final report or challan has yet been submitted before the court. Questions concerning authenticity of electronic material, admissibility of digital evidence, forensic examination of electronic devices, ownership or operation of social media accounts, publication of allegedly offending content, attribution of liability, and all other factual controversies remain matters requiring thorough investigation and eventual determination during trial,” the court observed.

The magistrate said the court was not required at this stage to carry out a deeper assessment of the evidentiary value of the prosecution case, but added that the available record showed the investigation had not advanced to a point where continued detention could be justified merely because of administrative delay and institutional inertia.

“At this stage, the court is not required to undertake a deeper examination of the evidentiary worth of the prosecution case. Nevertheless, the overall circumstances reflected by the record undeniably indicate that the investigation has not progressed to a stage where continued detention of the applicant can be justified solely on the basis of administrative delays and institutional inertia,” it added.

The order further stressed that bail is meant to ensure an accused person appears for trial and is not to be used as punishment before conviction. It added that procedural lapses on the part of investigating agencies cannot be allowed to keep an accused behind bars indefinitely when no exceptional grounds for further detention are shown.

“The settled principles governing bail further require that where continued incarceration serves no meaningful investigational purpose, and where the prosecution fails to demonstrate exceptional circumstances warranting further detention, the liberty of the accused should not be curtailed unnecessarily. Criminal jurisprudence consistently recognises that procedural delays attributable to investigating agencies cannot indefinitely deprive an accused of liberty. The object of bail is to secure attendance of the accused at trial and not to inflict pre-conviction punishment.”