September 16, 2026
By Hashir Ahsan
ISLAMABAD
An NCCIA Special Court has granted post-arrest bail to journalist Bilal Ghauri in a case registered under the PECA Act.
Judicial Magistrate Malik Aman heard the case, where Advocate Supreme Court Imran Shafique appeared on behalf of Bilal Ghauri. Presenting his arguments, Advocate Imran Shafique said that the case is based on malice and its primary allegations are not proven by evidence. After hearing the arguments, the court approved the bail against surety bonds of one hundred thousand rupees. While pronouncing the verbal order, Judge Malik Aman stated that if Bilal Ghauri is not arrested in any other case, he should be released.
Case background
The National Cyber Crime Investigation Agency (NCCIA) has registered Case No. 143/2026 against Muhammad Bilal Ghauri at the CCRC Islamabad police station under Sections 20 and 26-A of PECA (Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act 2016). In this case, Bilal Ghauri has been accused of spreading false information and establishing a so-called “false narrative” through electronic media or digital platforms.
In the bail application, Bilal Ghauri has outright rejected all these allegations, declaring them a malicious action in retaliation for performing his journalistic duties. The bail application details the entire incident and the circumstances surrounding the arrest of journalist Bilal Ghauri.
The application submitted that on the night between September 5 and 6, 2026, at around 2:00 AM, the accused was engaged in his routine journalistic work in his office located on the ground floor of his home when he was suddenly picked up from there.
When he did not arrive at the upper residential portion for a long time, his wife went downstairs, where she saw that the office door was open, the light and fan were running, while his wallet and glasses were lying right there on the table, and his mobile phone was switched off. The family had no knowledge of this unexpected ‘invisible’ arrest, whereupon they immediately informed the 15 police helpline and submitted a formal written missing person application at the Shalimar Police Station.
Hours later, when this matter was raised on social media and the news went viral, his arrest was finally disclosed by official sources and the agency, which raises serious questions about the initial conduct and procedural methodology of the agency.
Highlighting the legal and technical flaws in the FIR, the defense counsel placed the stance before the court that the prosecution has completely failed to point out even a single specific word, sentence, or statement in its own registered case that could conclusively be termed false or fabricated.
In the FIR, merely a vague and general term “False Narrative” has been used, but it has not been clarified what the actual truth was, which statement of the accused was wrong, and what proof exists that the accused had knowledge of it being wrong.
According to basic principles of law, unless the essential ingredients of an offense are clarified, a citizen’s liberty cannot be snatched merely on the basis of allegations. On this ground, this entire case becomes a case of “Further Inquiry” under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
The application also explained that the controversial program on the basis of which this FIR was registered was actually a written and oral Urdu translation and explanation of an official English Gazette Notification issued by the government itself for public information. As a responsible media person, the journalist had presented an analysis and commentary on the contents and potential impacts of this official decision.
The defense counsel argued that if the government’s original notification and its publication are lawful under the law, then translating the same official document into Urdu and conveying it to the public in easy-to-understand language how can it fall under the category of an offense or “false information.
The prosecution has failed to prove that the journalist added anything fabricated outside the original Gazette Notification during the translation or explanation.
Mentioning legal defects, the application further stated that the basic requirements of Sections 20 and 26-A of the PECA Act are completely absent in this case. Under Section 20, there must be proof of harm to the reputation or privacy of a natural person, whereas here neither NACTA nor any affected citizen or institution has lodged any complaint.
This case has been registered on the complainantship of a sub-technical assistant of the Investigation Agency (NCCIA) itself, meaning the investigating institution itself played the role of complainant and judge.
Similarly, the fundamental requirement of Section 26-A is that there must be a strong apprehension of spreading fear, panic, or lawlessness among the public.
No such element, public reaction, or untoward incident exists on the case record, nor has any citizen complained about any kind of chaos being spread by this program; rather, this program has been in the public domain for several days.
Among other important points of the case is that the police and agency acted in extreme haste and unusual hurry; neither was any prior notice issued to the accused nor was he given an opportunity to present his defense.
The seizure of the laptop and mobile phone from the possession of the accused during physical remand after the arrest cannot be declared as proof of any crime, because these are professional devices used daily by a journalist, and the material being referred to is already present in the public domain. Therefore, keeping the accused in continuous detention on this basis is completely based on injustice.
The application pleaded that Bilal Ghauri is a reputable and responsible member of the journalistic community who has an unblemished past and has always performed journalistic services in the public interest. His arrest in this manner is a severe violation of fundamental rights granted under the Constitution of Pakistan, particularly freedom of expression, freedom of the press, and the public’s right to access information.
Furthermore, the maximum punishment under these sections of PECA is three years or a fine, which does not fall under the Prohibitory Clause of the Code of Criminal Procedure, owing to which release on bail in such a situation becomes the legal right of the accused.
Since the investigation is almost complete, the challan has not yet been submitted in court, and nothing further remains to be recovered from the accused, keeping him in jail without delay, without a sentence of death or life imprisonment, is equivalent to pre-trial punishment.