Supreme Court clarifies rules for revoking bail in criminal cases

The Supreme Court of Pakistan has outlined eight principles under which bail granted to an accused person may be cancelled clarifying the circumstances in which courts can withdraw the concession.

The principles were explained in a judgment authored by Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar in a case involving Ali Asghar Khokhar of Larkana. The court maintained his pre-arrest bail, upholding an earlier decision by the Sindh High Court.

The case originated from an incident on March 3, 2024 when Noor Hussain died after an electricity wire supplying power to shops broke. The case was registered at Rahmatpur Police Station in Larkana.

A sessions court had initially rejected Khokhar’s pre-arrest bail, but the Sindh High Court subsequently granted him relief. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision observing that a nine-month delay in registering the FIR and the accused person’s alleged role required further investigation.

According to the Supreme Court’s judgment bail may be cancelled on the following eight grounds:

1. Illegal or unjustified bail order: When the original bail decision appears unlawful or contrary to the requirements of justice.

2. Misuse of bail concession: When the accused abuses the relief granted by the court.

3. Pressuring prosecution witnesses: When the accused attempts to influence witnesses or interfere with evidence.

4. Risk of absconding: When there is a likelihood that the accused will flee beyond the jurisdiction of the court.

5. Interference in investigation: When the accused attempts to obstruct or influence a fair investigation.

6. Commission of another offence: When the accused uses their freedom to commit another offence of a similar nature.

7. Discovery of new evidence: When fresh evidence emerges during the investigation indicating the accused’s involvement in the offence.

8. Abuse of the judicial process: The court’s principles also recognise conduct that undermines the purpose of granting bail and the administration of justice.

The Supreme Court also directed that a copy of the judgment be sent to the chairman of the Water and Power Development Authority (WAPDA) for information.

It further asked WAPDA and the relevant electricity company to examine the role of individuals allegedly involved in illegal electricity connections and power theft.