IHC extends PTI leader Simabia Tahir’s interim bail in PECA case

The Islamabad High Court (IHC) on Monday extended the interim bail of Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) leader Simabia Tahir in a case registered under the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act (PECA) and directed all parties to present detailed arguments at the next hearing.

ISLAMABAD, Aug 17 (APP): The Islamabad High Court (IHC) on Monday extended the interim bail of Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) leader Simabia Tahir in a case registered under the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act (PECA) and directed all parties to present detailed arguments at the next hearing.
Justice Khadim Hussain Soomro heard the petition seeking pre-arrest bail in the case. During the proceedings, Simabia Tahir appeared before the court along with her counsel, Malik Faisal and Shamsa Kiani.
The court observed that complainant Anees ur Rehman had not yet been served with a notice. The assistant attorney general informed the court that the notice had not been issued and assured that the complainant would be summoned.
The petitioner’s counsel argued that the FIR was based on a social media post, but neither the date nor the time of the alleged post had been mentioned in the complaint.
When the court inquired about the punishment prescribed under the relevant provisions, the defence counsel submitted that two of the charges were bailable, while Section 10 of PECA was a non-bailable offence carrying a maximum sentence of 14 years.
The counsel contended that the case was baseless and had been registered with mala fide intent, alleging that his client was being subjected to political victimisation.
He further argued that there was no private complainant in the case and that the complainant was an FIA technical assistant. The defence also cited various judicial precedents and requested the court to confirm the interim bail.
Justice Soomro observed that most of the charges in the case were bailable.
The assistant attorney general informed the court that an additional sessions judge had earlier dismissed the petitioner’s bail application due to non-appearance. He also referred to the trial court’s order, stating that the first bail application had been rejected and a second application had subsequently been filed.
The court remarked that the matter required a detailed ruling and directed both sides to appear fully prepared at the next hearing and assist the court in deciding the legal issues involved.
The hearing was later adjourned after the interim bail was extended.
What to read next...