Supreme Court | Witness Protection Scheme Not Substitute For Bail Cancellation | Allahabad High Court’s Cyclostyled Orders Deprecated | Matter Remanded For Fresh Decision
Kiran Raj
The Supreme Court of India Division Bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice Sandeep Mehta has set aside an order of the Allahabad High Court which had declined to cancel bail on the ground that the complainant could seek recourse under the Witness Protection Scheme, 2018. The Court directed that the matter be remanded to the High Court for fresh consideration on merits, with specific instructions to examine the allegations of threats to witnesses, obtain a report from the Investigating Officer, and dispose of the bail cancellation application within four weeks.
The proceedings originated from a First Information Report registered as Case Crime No. 137 of 2022 at Police Station Surajpur, District Gautam Budh Nagar, Uttar Pradesh. The FIR alleged offences under Sections 302, 201, 364, 120B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The complainant, later the appellant before the Supreme Court, reported the incident and named the accused persons, who were subsequently arrested.
The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad granted bail to one of the accused, subject to conditions recorded in its order dated 29 April 2024. The bail conditions included prohibitions against tampering with prosecution evidence, threatening or intimidating witnesses, misusing liberty, participating in criminal activities, or interfering with the investigation. The High Court further observed that in case of violation, the trial court retained the liberty to cancel bail.
Subsequently, the complainant alleged that the accused began administering threats to witnesses. Two FIRs, bearing Nos. 262 of 2024 and 740 of 2024, were lodged at the same police station by one of the witnesses, Chahat Ram, regarding such threats.
On these grounds, the complainant filed Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Cancellation Application No. 93 of 2025 before the High Court under Section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, contending that the accused had violated the bail conditions.
The High Court, by its order dated 11 April 2025, declined to cancel the bail. Instead, it directed the complainant to approach the competent authority under the Witness Protection Scheme, 2018, citing the decision in Mahender Chawla v. Union of India (2019) 14 SCC 615. The application was disposed of with liberty to seek protection within the framework of the Scheme.
The complainant challenged this order before the Supreme Court through Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 9082 of 2025, which was granted and registered as Criminal Appeal No. 3830 of 2025.
In the Supreme Court proceedings, Mr. Rishi Malhotra, Senior Counsel, appeared for the appellant. Mr. Vijendra Singh represented the State of Uttar Pradesh, and Mr. Nitin Saluja appeared for the respondent accused. The State’s counsel, upon instructions from the Investigating Officer present in Court, confirmed that there was substance in the allegations of threats.
The respondent’s counsel submitted that no notice had been issued to the accused in the High Court proceedings, and therefore, the order was passed without his client’s participation.
The appellant argued that the High Court erred in relegating the complainant to the Witness Protection Scheme and that bail cancellation ought to have been considered on merits in light of prima facie material showing violation of bail conditions.
The Supreme Court observed that the High Court ought to have decided the bail cancellation application on its merits, rather than directing the complainant to pursue relief under the Witness Protection Scheme. The Bench recorded: “When it is an outright case of breach of the conditions of the bail order and when the original first informant is able to prima facie demonstrate in what manner the accused person is abusing the liberty granted to him, then, in such circumstances, the provisions of the Witness Protection Scheme, 2018 have hardly any role to play.”
The Court elaborated on the scope and purpose of the Witness Protection Scheme, noting: “The true purpose of the Witness Protection Scheme is to eradicate the corrosive effect that intimidation and threats, whether overt or covert, have upon the witness’s ability to speak the truth fearlessly. It is to address the insidious psychological impact on the minds of witnesses and eliminate the climate of fear, that may cloud the testimony of the witnesses during trial.”
The Bench recorded the legislative history leading to the Scheme and reiterated that its purpose was curative and supportive, not a substitute for judicial remedies under the CrPC. It stated: “The existence of a Witness Protection Scheme can by no stretch be a consideration to decline to cancel the bail, even when there is prima-facie material indicating that the accused administered threats or caused intimidation to the witnesses. To substitute one for the other is to denude the court of its authority and render the provisions of bail cancellation otiose.”
On the principles governing cancellation of bail, the Court cited prior precedent: “The governing principle is that if the accused tampers with evidence, threatens witnesses, or attempts to subvert the trial, the indulgence of bail is to be withdrawn. It is a recognition that liberty is conditional, not absolute, and subject always to the larger interest of ensuring a fair trial.”
The Bench further remarked on prevailing practices in the Allahabad High Court, recording its disapproval: “We are at pains to note that we came across at least forty recent orders… All of the above orders are a verbatim copy of each other. We are dismayed to note that the aforesaid practice of passing cyclostyled template orders has been in vogue past more than two years.”
The Court stated the responsibility of prosecutors: “The most disturbing feature of all these orders passed is that the Public Prosecutor instead of assisting the learned Judge in the right direction by pointing out the correct position of law, has instead himself urged that the witness or complainant be relegated to avail remedy under the Witness Protection Scheme rather than seeking cancellation of the bail of the accused person… We deprecate this practice.”
The Supreme Court set aside the impugned order of the Allahabad High Court dated 11 April 2025. It directed that the matter be remanded to the High Court for rehearing of the bail cancellation application on its own merits.
The Bench ordered: “We set aside the impugned order passed by the High Court and remand the matter to the High Court with a direction to rehear the application for cancellation of bail on its own merits, after calling for an appropriate report from the Investigating Officer as regards the two FIRs which have been registered by Chahat Ram i.e. one of the witnesses in the said case.”
The High Court was directed to provide an opportunity of hearing to all concerned parties, examine the Investigating Officer’s report, and then pass an appropriate order in accordance with law.
The Supreme Court mandated a strict timeline: “Let the entire exercise as aforesaid be undertaken at the earliest, and an appropriate order be passed within a period of four weeks from today.”
The Court further directed its Registry to circulate copies of this order to all High Courts and send one copy to the Chief Justice of the Allahabad High Court.
Pending applications in the matter were disposed of accordingly.
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Mr. Rishi Malhotra, Senior Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. Vijendra Singh, Advocate for the State of Uttar Pradesh; Mr. Nitin Saluja, Advocate
Case Title: Phireram v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.
Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1074
Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. 3830 of 2025 (arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 9082 of 2025)
Bench: Justice J.B. Pardiwala, Justice Sandeep Mehta
