Supreme Court Seeks Scrutiny of Illegal Power Sales, Declines to Cancel Bail

Independently written and published by Shahbaz Shah Legal Journal.

The Supreme Court of Pakistan has called for close examination of people involved in the theft, unlawful sale and private supply of electricity, while leaving intact the pre-arrest bail granted to Anwar Ali Kori in a Larkana injury case. The Court considered the roles of WAPDA and the concerned utility company important enough to send a copy of its order to the Chairman WAPDA. Order, paragraphs 10–11.

The order in Ali Asghar Khokhar v. Anwar Ali Kori and others is dated 5 August 2026. Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar wrote it for a bench also comprising Justice Irfan Saadat Khan. The criminal case remains before the trial court, which must decide it on its own merits. Case particulars Paragraph 11.

The wire injury and the petition to cancel bail

According to the FIR account reproduced in the order, electricity was being supplied to shops through a special line crossing the complainant's shops. On 3 March 2024, a PVC wire broke or became unplugged and came into contact with a high-tension wire, causing an electric shock to the complainant's brother, Noor Hussain. The order records treatment at a trauma centre and then the Burns Centre in Karachi. Paragraph 2, continuing on page 2.

FIR No. 03/2025 at Police Station Rehmatpur, Larkana, invoked sections 336, 337-L(i) and (ii), 506 and 34 PPC. The Sessions Court rejected the respondent's pre-arrest bail application on 30 January 2025. The Sindh High Court's Larkana circuit bench confirmed bail on 20 October 2025. Khokhar, the complainant, then approached the Supreme Court for cancellation. Paragraph 1 Paragraph 3.

The complainant argued that the High Court had overlooked relevant facts and incriminating material. The Additional Prosecutor General, however, supported the conclusion that the case required further inquiry and could not dispute the nine-month delay in registration of the FIR. Paragraphs 3–4.

Why the bail order survived

The Supreme Court examined the combination of factors on which the High Court had acted. There was no plausible explanation for the delay in lodging the FIR. The role attributed to the respondent concerned negligence, he alleged mala fide implication, and the High Court had recorded the investigating officer's statement that he had no contact with WAPDA officials. These matters supported a tentative assessment of further inquiry. Paragraph 5, continuing on page 3.

After considering the offences alleged, the Supreme Court agreed that a full trial was needed to establish the role and guilt of those implicated. Neither the delay nor the description of an allegation as negligence was treated as a universal rule granting bail in every similar prosecution. The Court assessed the material in this particular case. Paragraph 6, continuing on page 4.

The complainant ultimately stated that the trial was continuing and he did not wish to press his petition. The Court also independently recorded that the High Court's bail order required no interference. It disposed of the petition accordingly. Paragraph 9 Paragraph 11.

Cancellation requires a distinct legal case

The order draws an important distinction between opposing the original grant of bail and taking away bail already granted. Referring to section 497(5) CrPC, the Court explained that liberty cannot be curtailed casually. A cancellation application must identify a serious defect in the grant or substantial material showing abuse of the concession or another recognised ground. Paragraph 7.

Paragraph 8 recalls the principles discussed in Sami Ullah v. Laiq Zada, 2020 SCMR 1115; Sharif Khan v. State, 2021 SCMR 87; and Zafar Iqbal v. State, 2021 SCMR 1909. The grounds listed concern:

• A patently illegal, erroneous or factually incorrect bail order resulting in a miscarriage of justice.
• Misuse of the concession of bail.
• Pressure on prosecution witnesses or interference with their evidence.
• A likelihood of absconding beyond the court's jurisdiction.
• Interference with the investigation.
• Involvement in a similar offence while on bail.
• Fresh material collected during investigation tending to establish the accused's guilt.

These are the grounds the order discusses; their application still requires a supported assessment of the relevant facts. The Supreme Court ordinarily does not interfere with the High Court's discretion unless it is fanciful, arbitrary or outside the limits set by the governing precedents. Paragraphs 7–8, continuing on page 5.

The separate concern about illegal electricity sales

During the hearing, the complainant said he purchased electricity through a contractor and was not paying against a bill issued by WAPDA or the concerned utility. The Additional Prosecutor General had alleged that both sides were involved in electricity theft. These statements explain the Court's concern; they are not findings of guilt after trial. Paragraph 4 Paragraph 9.

The Court found it difficult to conceive that electricity could be supplied in that way without the knowledge of the relevant utility and its officials. It discussed complicity and the responsibility that may arise where someone intentionally aids, directs or participates in an unlawful act carried out through another. It required the roles of all involved in theft, unlawful sale and private siphoning to be examined closely by WAPDA and the utility company. Paragraph 10, continuing on page 6.

The practical result has two parts: the accused retained bail, while the alleged supply arrangement remained a matter for scrutiny. The Supreme Court expressly protected the trial from prejudice arising from its observations. The order neither acquits the respondent nor convicts a utility official, contractor or consumer. Paragraph 11.

For a separate application of further inquiry in a criminal prosecution, see the journal's analysis of digital evidence and bail in Ashfaq's case.

Sources

• Complete Supreme Court judgment.
• Download judgment PDF.
• Case details and searchable judgment summary.

Frequently asked questions

Did the Supreme Court cancel Anwar Ali Kori's bail?

No. The Court found no reason to interfere with the Sindh High Court's bail order. The complainant also chose not to press his cancellation petition, which was disposed of accordingly. paragraph 11.

What grounds can justify cancellation of bail?

The order discusses a seriously defective grant of bail, misuse of liberty, interference with witnesses or investigation, risk of absconding, repetition of a similar offence, and fresh incriminating material. Cancellation must rest on substantial grounds assessed under the applicable legal principles. paragraphs 7–8.

Does a delayed FIR automatically entitle an accused to bail?

This order creates no such automatic rule. The unexplained nine-month delay was considered together with the alleged role, the investigating officer's statement and the need for further inquiry in this particular case. paragraphs 4–6.

What did the Court say about WAPDA and the utility company?

It required close examination of the roles of people involved in electricity theft, unlawful sale and private supply outside the authorised system. It also directed that a copy of the order be sent to the Chairman WAPDA for information. paragraphs 10–11.

Did the order convict a utility official or the complainant?

No. It discussed the alleged electricity arrangement and possible complicity, but imposed no conviction. The pending criminal case must be decided by the trial court on its own merits, without prejudice from these observations. paragraphs 10–11.

When was the Supreme Court order made?

The order is dated 5 August 2026. It was written by Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar on a bench also comprising Justice Irfan Saadat Khan. case particulars; final page.