In a disturbing turn of events, Sohrab Barkat, who has been arrested under three separate FIRs, saw his bail arbitrarily cancelled by Judge Majhoka today, raising serious questions about judicial impartiality and adherence to legal principles.
Barkat had already been granted bail in two of the three FIRs, and his bail in the third case is currently pending before the Supreme Court. Anticipating that he might be granted bail, the NCCIA reportedly moved to cancel one of his existing bails. Shockingly, Judge Majhoka, who recently convicted Imaan Mazari, heard the matter and cancelled Barkat’s bail—a move widely being criticized as contrary to established jurisprudence.
Legal experts point out that under Supreme Court rulings, including Sami Ullah v. Laiq Zada (2020 SCMR 1115), bail can only be cancelled in exceptional circumstances, such as:
- Misuse of bail
- Hampering prosecution
- Interfering with investigation
- Using liberty to commit a crime
- Likely to abscond
- Fresh grounds of arrest arising
None of these conditions apply to Sohrab Barkat, who has already spent over 75 days in custody and has had no opportunity to misuse his bail or obstruct the case.
Critics have described the judge’s order as biased and politically motivated, undermining the principles of fairness and justice. Lawyers representing Barkat have announced they will file an immediate appeal against the order.