Web Desk
KARACHI — A district court in Karachi has rescheduled the hearing of a bail petition filed by journalist Farhan Mallick, who was arrested last month under cybercrime and defamation charges.
The hearing will now take place on April 7, according to his lawyer, Abdul Moiz Jaferii.
Speaking to Dawn.com, Jaferii said the Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) claimed it hadn’t received notice of the hearing originally set for Thursday, resulting in a postponement until Monday at 8:30 a.m.
Mallick, founder of media platform Raftar and formerly associated with Samaa TV, was taken into custody on March 20.
Authorities allege he published anti-state content on Raftar TV’s YouTube channel.
He has been booked under sections of the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act (PECA) and the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC).
Post-Arrest Bail Plea Challenged
The journalist’s legal team moved the district and sessions court (east) to challenge a previous decision by a judicial magistrate who had denied post-arrest bail.
The new bail petition seeks to reverse the magistrate’s ruling and secure Mallick’s release.
A court notice was issued to the FIA on Saturday in connection with the fresh plea.
Charges and Legal Provisions
According to the FIR lodged on March 20, the FIA had received a complaint alleging that Raftar TV was circulating anti-state videos targeting prominent figures.
Mallick has been charged under the following:
PECA Sections:
16: Unauthorized use of identity information
20: Offences against the dignity of a natural person
26-A: Spreading fake news likely to create fear or unrest
PPC Sections:
500: Defamation
109: Abetment
Section 26-A, recently introduced in PECA, criminalizes the dissemination of information that the offender knows or believes to be false and which may cause fear, public panic, or unrest.
Conviction under this law carries a penalty of up to three years in jail, a fine of Rs2 million, or both.
Concerns Among Journalists
The introduction of stricter cybercrime laws has sparked alarm among Pakistan’s journalist community.
Many view the new provisions as vague and potentially oppressive, raising fears about increased surveillance and censorship under the guise of combating disinformation.