Supreme Court sets out eight principles for cancelling bail

• The court said bail may be revoked if the order granting it appears unlawful or unjust on its face.
• Misuse of bail, interference with witnesses or evidence, and a risk of absconding can justify cancellation.
• The court upheld pre-arrest bail in a Larkana case, citing a nine-month delay in registering the FIR and the need to examine the accused’s alleged role further.

The Supreme Court has laid down eight principles for cancelling bail in a judgment that upheld the Sindh High Court’s decision to grant pre-arrest bail to Ali Asghar Khokhar in a case involving a fatal incident linked to an allegedly illegal electricity connection in Larkana.

In the judgment, authored by Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar, the court said bail could be cancelled if the order granting it was prima facie illegal or unjust. The court said an accused could also lose bail by misusing the concession, attempting to influence prosecution witnesses, tampering with evidence or obstructing court proceedings.

The risk that an accused may abscond beyond the court’s jurisdiction or interfere with a fair investigation can also warrant cancellation. The judgment said bail may be revoked if the accused uses their release to commit a similar offence or if fresh facts or evidence uncovered during the investigation point to their involvement in the offence.

According to the case record, Noor Hussain died on March 3, 2024, after an electricity wire snapped within the jurisdiction of Rahmatpur Police Station in Larkana. The wire was supplying power to shops through a connection allegedly drawn illegally from a special line serving a disposal facility.

The Larkana sessions court rejected Khokhar’s pre-arrest bail application on January 30, 2025. The Sindh High Court’s Larkana circuit bench granted him bail on October 20, 2025, citing the nine-month delay in registering the first information report (FIR), among other grounds. The decision was then challenged before the Supreme Court, which upheld the grant of bail after finding that the delay and Khokhar’s alleged role warranted further inquiry.

The Supreme Court directed that a copy of the judgment be sent to the WAPDA chairman for information. It also said WAPDA and the relevant power utility should examine the role of individuals involved in the illegal supply, theft and unauthorised diversion of electricity.