Court grants bail to journalist Farhan Mallick in ‘PECA’, fraud cases

KARACHI: A sessions court on Monday approved the bail petition of journalist Farhan Mallick in both cases, one registered under the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act (PECA), 2016 and other being a fraud case. This also raises questions over the Federal Investigation Agency’s (FIA) failure to specify the alleged ‘anti-state’ content in the charges. The senior journalist was detained on March 20, on a case pertaining to ‘anti-state’ content, while he was booked in another fraud case on March 26.

During the hearing, the court pressed the FIA’s legal team to identify the statements in Mallick’s programs which were deemed “anti-state,” observing that the agency had submitted a USB containing the content but failed to pinpoint objectionable material. “Aside from the USB, can you specify what part of the content was anti-state?”

Journalist Farhan Mallick slammed with alleged fraud case, remanded to FIA

Mallick’s counsel, Abdul Moiz Jafferi argued that the programs cited in the case predated the PECA Act and did not contain any anti-state material. “The case references old programs that were never previously deemed unlawful,” the lawyer said.

When the FIA prosecutor alleged that Mallick had targeted “prominent figures” in his programs, the court noted that the charges did not name any individuals or specify which content was ‘illegal’.

The judge also raised broader concerns about digital media regulation, asking whether any institution monitors social media like PEMRA does for TV channels. The court was informed that while print and electronic media have regulatory bodies, social media oversight is still pending legislation.

After hearing arguments, the court approved Mallick’s bail, directing him to submit surety bonds worth PKR 100,000.

The FIA had booked Mallick under PECA’s stringent provisions, which criminalise online speech deemed harmful to state interests. The case will proceed with Malik now released on bail, as the prosecution faces scrutiny over the lack of concrete evidence in its charges.