KARACHI: Weeks after a legal battle in courts, journalist Farhan Mallick finally secured post-arrest bail on Monday in two cases registered against him one pertaining to allegedly uploading `anti-state` content on his YouTube channel and the other related to data theft through spoofing.

His counsel told Dawn that after getting bail in both cases, Mr Mallick was released from the Malir District Prison, as he was not required in any other case.

Mr Mallick, founder of media agency Raftar, was initially picked up by the Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) on March 20. After the expiry of his four-dayphysical remand, a judicial magistrate (East) remanded him to judicial custody.

However, instead of handing him over to the prison authorities, the FIA booked him in a second case this time related to data theft through spoofing and obtained his physical custody again, along with two other suspects.

On the first day of Eidul Fitr, the FIA produced Mr Mallick and the co-suspects before the duty magistrate and sought an extension in their physical remand. However, the court rejected the request and sent them to prison on judicial remand in the second case.

Meanwhile, defence counsel Abdul Moiz Jaferii filed a bail application before the Judicial Magistrate (East) Yusra Ashfaq, which was dismissed. The counsel subsequently challenged the order before the sessions court.

Earlier on Monday, defence counsel Jaferii and FIA prosecutor Sadiq Maitilo appeared before District and Sessions Judge (East) Dr Chaudhry Wasim Iqbal, where both sides presented their arguments.After hearing the counsel and examining the case file, the court allowed the application and granted post-arrest bail to Mr Mallick against a surety bond of Rs100,000, along with a personal bond.

In its order, the court observed that the alleged videos uploaded on the YouTube channel pertained to a period before the amendments made to the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act (Peca), 2016, through which Section 26-A dealing with punishment for false and fake information was enacted.

It added that Sections 16 (unauthorised use of identity information), 20 (offences against the dignity of a natural person) and 26-A prescribe punishment in the form of imprisonment for a specified period or a fine.

The alleged offences do not entail punishment falling within the prohibitory clause; on the other, the court noted, adding that the fine has been provided as an alternative to the sentencing period.

The court also noted that Mr Mallick hadalready been remanded to prison and his physical custody was no longer required for the investigation; thus, the post-arrest bail application was allowed.

During the arguments, Advocate Jaferii submitted that the impugned FIR lodged by the FIA was merely a fishing expedition to conjure up a case against the applicant through an abuse of Peca laws, as the applicant had no nexus with illegalities detailed therein and the entire edifice of the allegations levelled against him was not supported by even a speck of evidence.

He also submitted that it was an established law that bail was not to be withheld as a punishment, especially in the instant case where there was absolutely no incriminating material against the applicant before the court.

The counsel contended that protection against retrospective punishment was provided in Article 12 of the Constitution, as no law shall authorise the punishment of a person for an act or omission that was not punishable by law at the time of the act oromission.

On the other hand, prosecutor Maitilo opposed the bail plea, contending that Mr Mallick was allegedly involved in serious offences, including disseminating posts and videos against the state and its dignitaries and argued that he was not entitled to the concession of bail.

Second bail As the relief was granted in the `antistate` content case, Mr Jaferii approached Judicial Magistrate (Malir) Piyar Ali to seek bail in the second case pertaining to data theft through spoofing.

Later in the afternoon, after hearing arguments from both sides, the magistrate also granted bail to Mr Mallick in the spoofing case against a surety bond of Rs100,000 along with PR bonds.

In the release order, the magistrate directed the jail superintendent to release Mr Mallick if he is not required in any other case.