ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court said the bail can be cancelled if the accused fails to appear before the court without just cause, attempts to influence or intimidate witnesses, and tamper with the evidence.
Rab Nawaz had filed a petition against the Lahore High Court order for cancellation of post-arrest bail to Shehzad Hassan (respondent), who in a concert, fired five shots, resulting in the murder of Asad Ahmad, the brother of the complainant.
The judgment authored by Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah noted that the scope of the interference by this Court in its appellate jurisdiction, in matters of cancellation of bail are well settled and hardly need reiteration. Bail, though a concession granted to ensure the liberty of an accused pending trial, is not an unqualified right and can be withdrawn, if misused.
CJP emphasises digitalisation of court processes
The law recognises that bail may be cancelled if the accused, after securing release, engages in conduct that undermines the administration of justice. Such grounds include attempts to influence or intimidate witnesses, tampering with evidence, committing another offence while on bail or violating conditions imposed by the court.
Furthermore, if the accused fails to appear before the court without just cause, or if new facts come to light that materially alter the basis on which bail was granted the court may justifiably revoke the concession. The guiding principle remains that the liberty of an individual must be balanced against the need to ensure a fair trial and uphold public confidence in the justice system.
Besides that, the principles evolved for examining a bail granting order for the purpose of cancellation, the court usually interferes on two grounds: (i) when the impugned order is perverse on the face of it, or (ii) when the impugned order has been made in clear disregard of some principle of the law of bail.
A perverse order is the one that has been passed against the weight of the material on the record or by ignoring such material or without giving reasons; such order is also termed as arbitrary, whimsical and capricious.
While it is one of the elementary principles of the law of bail that courts are not to indulge in the exercise of a deeper appreciation of material available on record at the bail stage and are only to determine tentatively, by looking at such material, whether or not there exist any “reasonable grounds” for believing that the accused person is guilty of the alleged offence.
The Court observed that none of these grounds for cancellation of bail are attracted in the present case, therefore declined the petition to dismiss the post-arrest bail.
Copyright Business Recorder, 2025
Comments