A local journalist has requested an inquiry through the Member Inspection Team of the Islamabad High Court against Additional Sessions Judge West, Muhammad Afzal Majooka, for approving the interim bail application of a defendant who shared sensitive data, in violation of merit. The journalist, Tahir Naseer, submitted a request to the Member Inspection Team stating that his family’s NADRA data was leaked, leading him to file a case with the FIA (case number 349/2024) under sections 6,7,10,20 Violation of Privacy & 24 of Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act, 2016 r/w 34 & 109 PPC against Syed Mohsin Sultan Shah and Muhammad Kaleem.
Syed Mohsin Sultan Shah is the owner of a company named MAG VENTURES, which has been deceiving the public by offering a 15% monthly profit. The applicant had run a social media campaign against this illegal company, after which the defendants leaked and went viral with his family’s data. The accused, Mohsin Sultan, hired a lawyer from Lahore, Sakawat Ali, and Additional Sessions Judge Muhammad Afzal Majooka also hails from Lahore. The applicant claims that during the hearing on January 27, 2024, it became apparent from the judge’s remarks that he was biased. The judge asked the FIA’s investigating officer whether the arrest of the accused was required, to which the officer responded that the arrest was needed to recover the accused’s mobile phone and to question the NADRA officials who had provided the data. The judge then remarked that sending someone’s NADRA ID or displaying a legal firm’s DP on their phone was not a crime. The judge even suggested that the FIA should file a case against the complainant for creating videos against the accused party. The applicant also alleged that the accused was not present in the courtroom when the verdict was announced; the judge simply allowed the accused to leave after attending the morning session, granting bail against a bond of only 20,000 rupees. The applicant pointed out that for an ordinary defendant, the bond would not be less than 50,000 to 100,000 rupees.
Additionally, the court, in its decision, stated that sending only the defendant’s ID card and text to the complainant was not a crime. The applicant has urged the Member Inspection Team to investigate the possible collusion between the judge and the defendant’s lawyer and provide him with justice.
