SC sets rules for bail withdrawal

Says influencing witnesses, fleeing jurisdiction may justify revocation of relief

ISLAMABAD:

The Supreme Court has held that relief may be withdrawn if the accused misuses the concession, attempts to influence prosecution witnesses, interferes with the investigation or is likely to abscond beyond the court's jurisdiction.

The top court laid down eight key legal principles governing the cancellation of an accused person's bail in a judgement authored by Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar.

According to the Supreme Court, bail may be cancelled if the order granting it is prima facie illegal or unjust, or if the accused abuses the concession of bail by attempting to influence prosecution witnesses, tamper with evidence or obstruct the course of justice.

The court further held that bail may be revoked if there is a likelihood of the accused fleeing beyond the jurisdiction of the court, interfering with a fair investigation, or committing another offence of a similar nature while enjoying the concession of bail.

The emergence of new facts or evidence during the investigation indicating the accused's involvement in the offence also constitutes grounds for cancellation of bail.

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the Sindh High Court's decision in the case.

According to the case record, the incident occurred in a case registered at Larkana's Rehmatpur police station on March 3, 2024, after a person identified as Noor Hussain died when an electricity wire snapped while power was being supplied to shops through a special line drawn from a disposal phase.

The Larkana sessions judge had dismissed the pre-arrest bail application of the accused, Ali Asghar Khokhar, on January 30, 2025.

However, the Sindh High Court's Larkana Circuit Court granted him bail on October 20, 2025, citing a nine-month delay in the registration of the FIR and other grounds.

In its judgement, the Supreme Court observed that the nine-month delay in the registration of the FIR, along with the accused's alleged role in the incident, were matters requiring further inquiry.

The SC also directed that a copy of the judgement be forwarded to the chairman of the Water and Power Development Authority (Wapda) for information, enabling the authority and the relevant utility company to examine the role of individuals involved in the illegal supply of electricity, power theft and private siphoning of electricity.