PESHAWAR: Peshawar High Court has granted bail to a father, who was arrested after his video of aiming gun at his minor son had gone viral on social media.

A single-member bench of Justice Sahibzada Asadullah accepted bail petition of the suspect named Miandad, who is a mason by profession.

The suspect was arrested by police on Mar 29 after a video footage had gone viral on social media allegedly showing him aiming a pistol at his minor son, which had resulted into a public outcry.

He was charged under different provisions of Pakistan Penal Code and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Child Protection and Welfare Act. Earlier, his bail plea was rejected by a child protection court after which he moved the high court.

The petitioner`s counsel, Mehwish Muhib Kakakhel, contended that the case was rooted in a personal vendetta rather than genuine concern for the child`s safety.

She emphasised that the misuse of social media and emotionally charged visuals had distorted public perception and prematurely condemned an innocent man via a media trial.

The counsel stated that the incident was triggered by a longstanding marital conflict between spouses. She said that the estranged wife of the petitioner and her family allegedly used the video as a tool to escalate their personal feud into a criminal case.

She pointed out that according to court records, the child in question was not in Miandad`s custody at the time of the alleged incident, as the mother had already filed a family suit seeking maintenance and was taking care of the child.

Ms Kakakhel contended that the subordinate court had rejected bail plea of her client citing section 37 of KP Child Protection and Welfare Act, which addressed acts ofviolence against children and carried a punishment of up to three years imprisonment along with a fine.

However, she contended that there was insufficient evidence of any actual harm or intent to harm the child.

`There are no ocular evidence, no medical report, and no material proof to support the allegations of child abuse,` she added.

The counsel pointed out that the petitioner was also charged for criminal intimidation under section 506 PPC and for possessing a pistol under section 15 of Arms Act. However, she pointed out that no such weapon had been recovered from his possession and the allegations were fabricated.

Ms Kakakhel stated that the petitioner had no prior criminal history and all the offences for which he was charged were bailable except the one under the Child Protection and Welfare Act.

The counsel also put forth before the court that the case was a grim reminder of how personal disputes, when combined with viral content, could lead to gross miscarriages of justice.

She claimed that the petitioner was a father, who deeply loved his child, yet he was painted as a violent criminal based on manipulated circumstances.