Phireram vs State Of Uttar Pradesh

2025 INSC 1074 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 3830 OF 2025 [Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 9082 of 2025]

PHIRERAM …APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR. …RESPONDENT(S)

ORDER

Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by CHANDRESH Date: 2025.09.04 17:02:40 IST Reason: 1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal arises from the order passed by the High Court of

Judicature at Allahabad dated 11.04.2025 in Criminal Miscellaneous

Bail Cancellation Application No.93 of 2025 (for short, the

“Impugned Order”), by which the application filed by the appellant

herein-the original complainant seeking to get the bail of the accused

persons cancelled on the ground that they are administering threats

to the witnesses came to be finally disposed of with some directions.

3. The Impugned Order being very short, we quote it as under: -

“1. The instant Criminal Misc. Bail Cancellation Application has been filed for cancellation of bail of accused/Opposite Party No.2 on behalf of complainant/First Informer in C.Cr.No. 137 of 2022 under Section 34, 302, 201, 120B, 34 IPC, Police Station - Surajpur, District - Gautam Budh Nagar.

2. Heard learned counsel of complainant/First Informer and learned Government Counsel and perused file.

3. It is the averment of learned counsel of complainant/first informer that bail has been granted to accused/Opposite Party No.2 on conditions mentioned in the bail order, but accused/Opposite Party No.2 has violated the conditions mentioned in the bail order. The complainant and his witnesses are being threatened by him. An application has also been filed by the First Informant before Police/Administrative officers in this regard.

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 9082 of 2025 Page 1 of 33 4. It is the averment of learned Additional Government Counsel that the complainant/first informer has this remedy/opportunity under the Witness Protection Scheme, 2018 and this application for cancellation of bail can be disposed of in the light of protection provided to the first informer/witnesses under the Witness Protection Scheme, 2018 instead of filing application for cancellation of bail.

5. Keeping in view the contentions of the learned Additional Government Counsel, it is the opinion of this court that because the complainant/First Informer has right to get protection under the Witness Protection Scheme, 2018, which has been allowed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mahender Chawla and others Vs. Union of India reported in (2019) 14 SCC 615.

6. Accordingly, this application for cancellation of bail is finally disposed of with liberty that if the complainant/first informant files an application in prescribed form under Witness Protection Scheme, 2018 before the competent authority for the redressal of his grievances along with the certified copy of this order, then the application of the complainant/first informer will be heard immediately within a week by the competent authority and a legal decision will be taken thereon at the earliest/as early as possible within one month.

7. Accordingly, this application for cancellation of bail is finally disposed of.”

4. It appears from the materials on record that the appellant herein-the

original first informant, lodged the FIR bearing No.137 of 2022 with

the Surajpur Police Station District Gautam Budh Nagar, U.P. for the

offence punishable under Sections 302, 201, 364, 120-B read with 34

of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, “the I.P.C.”).

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 9082 of 2025 Page 2 of 33

5. The accused persons were arrested and thereafter were ordered to be

released on bail by the High Court, subject to certain terms and

conditions.

6. We take notice of the order passed by the High Court dated

29.04.2024 by which the High Court granted bail to the respondent

no. 2 herein-the original accused. While ordering the release of the

respondent no. 2 on bail, the High Court imposed the following

conditions: -

“1. The accused will not tamper with the prosecution evidence during the course of investigation and trial.

2. The applicant will not threaten/ intimidate the prosecution witnesses and victim / complainant.

3. The applicant will follow the orders of the court. He will be present in the court on the date fixed for hearing and will not take adjournment unnecessarily and will co-operate the trial honestly.

4. The applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail after being released on bail and will not take part in any criminal activity nor will commit any offence.

5. The applicant will not lure or threaten any person or police officers familiar with the facts of the case directly or indirectly nor will make any promise to them due to which they have to refrain from revealing the facts in the court.

In violation of any of the above conditions in the case, the trial court is at liberty to dismiss the bail of the applicant as per rules.” (Emphasis supplied)

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 9082 of 2025 Page 3 of 33

7. It is the case of the appellant herein that thereafter, the respondent

no.2 started administering threats to the witnesses.

8. We are also informed that two First Information Reports bearing nos.

262 of 2024 and 740 of 2024, respectively came to be lodged at the

Surajpur Police Station, District Gautum Budh Nagar by the witness

namely Chahat Ram to whom threats were being administered by the

accused i.e. the respondent no. 2 herein.

9. In such circumstances, referred to above, the appellant went before

the High Court with an application under Section 439 (2) of the

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (for short the “Cr.P.C.”) seeking

cancellation of bail on the ground that the accused had violated the

conditions imposed at the time of his release on bail.

10. We take notice of the fact that the High Court has passed a very

curious order.

11. The High Court says that the remedy with the appellant as an

aggrieved person being the original first informant is under the

Witness Protection Scheme, 2018. In other words, what we have

been able to understand from the bare reading of the impugned order

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 9082 of 2025 Page 4 of 33 is that the High Court wants the appellant to avail the provisions of

the Witness Protection Scheme, 2018 (for short, the “Witness

Protection Scheme”). Having said so, the High Court declined to

cancel the bail.

12. In such circumstances, referred to above, the appellant is here before

this Court with the present appeal.

13. We heard Mr.Rishi Malhotra, the learned senior counsel appearing

for the appellant, Mr. Vijendra Singh the learned counsel appearing

for the State and Mr.Nitin Saluja, the learned counsel appearing for

the respondent no. 2; the original accused.

14. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 2 would

submit that when the impugned order came to be passed by the High

Court, his client was not before the High Court as no notice was

issued to him.

15. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the State, upon

instructions from the Investigating Officer, who is personally present

in the Court today submitted that the I.O. has found some substance

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 9082 of 2025 Page 5 of 33 in the allegations levelled by the appellant as regards the

administration of threats to the witnesses by the respondent no. 2.

16. We are of the view that the High Court should have decided the

application seeking cancellation of bail on its own merits by applying

the well settled Principles of law.

17. We take notice of the fact that the High Court while ordering release

of the respondent no. 2 on bail, had itself observed that in the event

of violation or breach of any of the conditions, the trial court would

be at liberty to cancel the bail of the accused.

18. 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.

This Scheme has nothing to do as such when the complainant seeks

cancellation of bail on the ground of threats being administered to the

witnesses.

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 9082 of 2025 Page 6 of 33 SALUTARY OBJECT OF WITNESS PROTECTION SCHEME, 2018

19. We take this opportunity to explain the true scope and purport of the

Witness Protection Scheme more particularly to make it clear that it

is not an alternative to the provisions of the erstwhile CrPC and the

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 in so far as

cancellation of bail is concerned.

Legislative History

20. The concept that witnesses of a crime should be accorded protection

is not novel, rather it has been a brewing byproduct of years of

deliberation, and a widely accepted facet, considered to be essential

to the fair functioning of any criminal machinery.

21. In Zahira Habibullah Sheikh v. State of Gujarat reported in (2004) 4

SCC 158 it was observed that “if the witness himself is incapacitated from

acting as eyes and ears of justice, the trial gets putrefied and paralysed, and

it no longer can constitute a fair trial.” Without protection and support,

witnesses cannot discharge their solemn role, and criminal justice

loses both its purpose and legitimacy.

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 9082 of 2025 Page 7 of 33

22. Criminal justice rests upon the testimony of witnesses. It is they who

bring before the court the truth of the events, the identity of the

offender, and the sequence of acts which constitute the offence. The

quality of justice depends to a large extent on the testimony of

witnesses and unless witnesses are able to depose freely, the entire

process would be reduced to futility. Without the testimony of

witnesses, justice cannot be done. Delay, harassment, and

intimidation cause a collapse of faith in criminal justice.

23. Yet, the plight of witnesses has long been a matter of serious concern.

Over a period of years, it has been seen that witnesses are being

harassed and threatened a great deal and many a time there is no

adequate arrangements by the State for reassuring their confidence

to speak the truth freely.

24. The need for a comprehensive framework for protection of witness

had been echoed as early as 1958, more particularly in the 14th Report

of the Law Commission of India, titled “Reform of Judicial

Administration”, wherein it took note of the concerning trend of

harassment and intimidation of witness over the years. It expressed

its anguish over a increasing pattern of witnesses turning hostile

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 9082 of 2025 Page 8 of 33 under duress and intimidation that was resulting in a complete

collapse of prosecutions in cases of grave and heinous offences.

25. Decades later, in 1996, the 154th Report of the Law Commission on

the Code of Criminal Procedure lamented that, although “witnesses are

the most important factor in the criminal justice system” yet, there exists

no law “for protecting them from harassment or threats”. It stressed that

“unless the witnesses are protected, it would be difficult to expect

them to come forward and depose truthfully.”

26. A witness who is unable to depose freely is a liability, not an asset, to

the system. A criminal justice system that cannot protect its witnesses

cannot protect its citizens. A fair trial is not only the right of the

accused but also of the victim and of society. The right to a fair trial

is meaningless if the witnesses cannot come forward to depose

without fear.

27. The Malimath Committee Report on Reforms of Criminal Justice

System in 2003 expressed its concerns over how witnesses were being

threatened and lured, particularly by accused persons enlarged on

bail, which had the domino effect of many of them turning hostile. It

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 9082 of 2025 Page 9 of 33 observed that protection of witnesses, is the duty of the State for

without them, there can be no justice.

28. Several other reports of the Law Commission and other committees,

time and again reiterated the growing need for a comprehensive

framework on witness protection, and made a slew of

recommendations for protecting witnesses not only from external

threats but also from re-victimisation within the courtroom.

29. The 198th Report of the Law Commission in 2006, titled “Witness

Identity Protection and Witness Protection Programmes”, earmarked a

watershed moment that emphatically asserted the pressing need for

witness protection to enable them to depose without fear and to

ensure that trials continue remain fair and not a farce. It

recommended a comprehensive cohort of measures for eradicating

or neutralizing the effects of threats, intimidation and harassment

that have entered the minds of the witnesses (emphasis).

30. It was against this backdrop of reports, committee recommendations,

and catena of decisions of this Court, that the Ministry of Home

Affairs, formulated the draft Witness Protection Scheme, 2018.

However, the scheme assumed the force of law, only after the

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 9082 of 2025 Page 10 of 33 decision in the case of Mahender Chawla v. Union of India, reported

in (2019) 14 SCC 615, wherein this Court whilst recognizing that the

Right to Fair Trial encompassed within its ambit the right of

witnesses to depose fearlessly and without intimidation, exercised its

powers under Article 142 to declare the draft Witness Protection

Scheme as operative and binding.

The Witness Protection Scheme, 2018 is Curative in Nature

31. The reason for us to exhaustively discuss the legislative history, and

the longstanding push by the various committees over a significant

period of years for a witness protection scheme is to lay emphasis

that, the promulgation of the Witness Protection Scheme, was not

conceived as an alternative or substitute for the existing

considerations or conditions for the grant or cancellation of bail,

already enshrined in Section(s) 437 and 439 of the Cr.P.C.,

respectively.

32. The principle that individual liberty of accused and undertrial can be

curtailed to ensure that his conduct does not interfere with the course

of criminal justice existed even before the first report of the Law

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 9082 of 2025 Page 11 of 33 Commission in 1958, that emphatically urged the pressing need for

formulation of a witness protection scheme. Rather, as already

discussed in the aforesaid, this push for a witness protection scheme

gained momentum due to the alarming increase in the instances of

witnesses turning hostile on account of threats, intimidation, and

harassment, despite the sweeping provisions on cancellation of bail,

if an accused person attempts to contact any of the witness.

33. In this regard, few observations of some of the committees is

instructive. The 4th Report of the National Police Commission, as far

back as 1980, had noted that the “existing provisions regarding

cancellation of bail are wholly insufficient to reassure witnesses who face

social and economic pressures beyond the courtroom.” On similar lines,

the Malimath Committee observed that despite bail cancellations and

penal provisions, “witnesses turn hostile because the system does not

provide them the protective shield necessary to resist intimidation.” The

Law Commission in its 154th Report remarked that “the menace of

intimidation has assumed dimensions far beyond the reach of provisions

relating to bail and cancellation”.

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 9082 of 2025 Page 12 of 33

34. The aforesaid observations underscore that a dedicated scheme on

witness protection was a result of the imperative need to secure

testimony, due to the psychological complexities of witness

vulnerability, that the law on bail could not by itself address. If the

witnesses are not able to depose freely, justice itself will be a casualty.

35. In Zahira Habibullah Sheikh (supra) this Court succinctly explained

that while courts may cancel bail or issue directions restraining the

accused, “the majesty of the law is eroded if witnesses are not protected and

are driven to silence by intimidation.” The emphasis was not merely on

the formal power of the court to act against the accused, but on the

lived reality of the witness who must continue to reside in the

shadow of fear. Cancellation of bail could not remove that fear; only

protection could.

36. 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.

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 9082 of 2025 Page 13 of 33

37. There is a fine but pertinent distinction between the grant of bail and

its cancellation on the ground of violation of the conditions of bail

order and the affording of protection to a witness under the Scheme.

38. The Witness Protection Scheme is a remedial and curative measure,

designed to neutralise the effects of threats once they have

materialised. Bail cancellation, on the other hand, is a preventive and

supervisory function of the criminal court, whose very duty it is to

ensure that the trial proceeds unpolluted by intimidation. The former

is a positive obligation of the State, whereas the latter is judicial in

nature, flowing from the inherent power of the courts to ensure that

justice is done under its watch.

39. 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 and thereby make a mockery of the conditions

imposed while granting bail. As then there could be no meaningful

or reason for imposition of conditions for grant of bail, if its violation,

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 9082 of 2025 Page 14 of 33 that has the potency to pollute the streams of justice is simpliciter

brushed aside on the pretext of some form of alternative remedy.

40. Bail is not to be understood merely as a mechanical order releasing a

person from custody; it is, in substance, a judicial recognition that

liberty is the norm and detention an exception, subject however to the

overriding imperative that liberty should not be abused to thwart the

course of justice. This Court in Gudikanti Narasimhulu v. Public

Prosecutor, A.P. reported in (1978) 1 SCC 240 and a catena of other

decisions has emphasised that the discretion of granting bail is

guided by considerations of likelihood of abscondence, tampering of

evidence, and intimidation of witnesses.

41. When bail is granted, it is not an untrammelled licence to act as one

pleases. The conditions imposed under Section(s) 437 sub-section (3)

or 439 sub-section (2) of the Cr.P.C. are not mere ad-libs, they

constitute substantive obligations upon the accused as-well as the

courts granting the bail. The grant of bail is not a mere release but a

conditional liberty. Before enlarging the accused on bail, the court is

required to impose such conditions as necessary to meet the ends of

justice and ensure a fair trial. Even after the release of the accused

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 9082 of 2025 Page 15 of 33 person, the court retains the duty of supervision to revoke bail upon

breach of the conditions on which the accused was released.

42. Violation of those conditions is a ground for cancellation of bail as a

matter of duty enjoined upon the court who whilst enlarging the

infracting accused on bail, allowed such violation to ensue under its

watch.

43. As held in State v. Captain Jagjit Singh reported in AIR 1962 SC 253

the considerations relevant for bail are not only with reference to the

accused but also with reference to the larger interests of the public

and the State.

44. The courts cannot abdicate its role on the pretext that since the State

has a scheme for protecting witnesses, we shall not exercise our

jurisdiction to cancel bail even though conditions have been violated.

45. The Witness Protection Scheme is applicable to offences which are

punishable with death or life imprisonment or an imprisonment up

to seven years and above and also offences punishable under

Section(s) 354, 354A, 354B, 354C, 354D and 509 of the I.P.C.,

respectively. The protection granted by the Scheme is limited, it does

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 9082 of 2025 Page 16 of 33 not address concerns of persons who are witness to offences other

than the aforesaid. Whereas the net effect of cancellation of bail, when

the accused person so released, violated any of the conditions

imposed therein is two folds; first, it is a preventive and corrective

measure aimed at ensuring that such infractions which have the

propensity to seriously undermine a particular prosecution, is

adequately prevented from happening again in the near future, by

nipping in the bud, the root cause of such actions, and secondly, it is a

measure that the courts are empowered to undertake, in view of the

peculiar facts of each case and the attending circumstances, and is not

confined to any particular threshold of offences or nature of

witnesses, etc., it is the general sweeping powers of the court as the

sentinel on qui vive and the custodian of the sword of justice.

46. The scope of the Scheme reflects its objective, that a witness to an

offence must be able to depose before the court without fear or

intimidation. At the same time, it acknowledges that the decision to

extend protection is inherently subjective, to be taken upon a careful

assessment of the vulnerability of the witness and the seriousness of

the threat perception (emphasis). The same reads as under: -

“Scope of the Scheme:

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 9082 of 2025 Page 17 of 33 Witness Protection may be as simple as providing a police escort to the witness up to the Courtroom or using modern communication technology (such as audio video means) for recording of testimony. In other more complex cases, involving organised criminal group, extraordinary measures are required to ensure the witness's safety viz. anonymity, offering temporary residence in a safe house, giving a new identity, and relocation of the witness at an undisclosed place. However, Witness protection needs of a witness may have to be viewed on case to case basis depending upon their vulnerability and threat perception.”

(Emphasis supplied)

47. From a bare perusal of the Scheme, it is evidence that the

considerations for when the recourse to the Scheme may be taken by

any witness is not contingent upon violation of a condition imposed

on an accused during grant of bail or even during its pendency. This

Court has time and again cautioned that due to the non-

implementation of the scheme, many witnesses succumb to hostility.

48. In Hari v. State of U.P. reported in (2021) 17 SCC 111, this Court

lamented that had the Witness Protection Scheme been implemented

when the witnesses were deposing evidence in the said case, they

would not have turned hostile. What needs to be noted here is that

the scheme is merely for the protection of the witness, and it casts a

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 9082 of 2025 Page 18 of 33 positive obligation on the State machinery to ensure that a fair trial

takes place. But to outrightly treat it as a ground to deny cancellation

of bail is entirely erroneous.

49. In Munilakshmi v. Narendra Babu reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC

1380, this Court cancelled the bail of the respondent as the principal

witnesses to the trial turned hostile while the respondent was on bail.

This Court noted that a vital witness had made a “sudden

summersault” in her stance and the same cannot be detached from the

allegations made against the respondent of hiring goons, etc. This

Court noted that when glaring and overwhelming circumstances

come under the notice of the court which reflect upon the misuse of

concession of bail, it becomes an imperative upon the court to cancel

the bail. This Court concluded that the respondent had the potential

to influence the witnesses slated to depose against him. This Court

also noted that in such situations the remedies in law for courts are

either to cancel the bail so tendered or to recall such witness. In the

following paragraphs, reproduced below this Court explained the

importance of witnesses during prosecution and the factors which

lead to their hostility: -

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 9082 of 2025 Page 19 of 33

“26. A major challenge before this Court is to ensure a fair trial amidst the hostility of witnesses. Undoubtedly, witnesses play a very vital role in bringing justice home, especially in the adversarial system of court trials where the onus lies on the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused by bringing persons acquainted with the facts before the courts of justice. Their testimony determines the fate of a trial before the court of law, without which the court would be like a sailor in an ocean sans the radar and the compass.[Mohd. Ashraf, ‘Peculiarities of Indian Criminal Justice System Towards Witnesses : An Analysis’ (2018) 26 ALJ 64.] If a witness turns hostile for extenuating reasons and is reluctant to depose the unvarnished truth, it will cause irreversible damage to the administration of justice and the faith of the society at large in the efficacy and credibility of the criminal justice system will stand eroded and shattered.

27. This Court in Ramesh v. State of Haryana [(2017) 1 SCC 529] has illustratively explained the reasons behind the witnesses retracting their statements before the Court and turning hostile. These include : (i) threat/intimidation; (ii) inducement by various means; (iii) use of muscle and money power by the accused; (iv) use of stock witnesses; (v) protracted trials; (vi) hassles faced by the witnesses during investigation and trial; and (vii) nonexistence of a robust legislative mechanism to check hostility of witnesses.

Amongst these reasons, the ‘threat’ and ‘intimidation’ of the witnesses have always been a matter of serious concern amongst all the stakeholders.”

50. What we want to convey is that the scheme is not an answer for every

form of threat or intimidation that a witness is subjected to. In fact, if

we are to go by the bare provisions of the scheme the real quotient of

danger that an accused is capable of exhibiting does not even figure

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 9082 of 2025 Page 20 of 33 out. There is nothing in the entire scheme that is aimed at preventing

the accused person or anyone else, as the case may be, from going

around administering threats or causing intimidation to the

witnesses. If we are to comment on the scheme, it offers protection to

witnesses of heinous crimes and crimes against women, which, with

all humility, is a very myopic view to societal realities, in our view.

More importantly, a straitjacket formula to witness protection is

neither possible nor endeavoured. In NHRC v. State of Gujarat

reported in (2009) 6 SCC 767, this Court pointed out that it would not

be proper to give any general directions for witness protection, as the

facts of each case would require unique measures to assure that the

witnesses’ right to testify safely is secured.

51. While the scheme creates an executive mechanism in pursuance of

which the relevant authorities make the requisite measures for the

protection of the witnesses, in no way does the obligations of the

courts of law stand delegated. The standards applied in a case of

seeking witness protection and cancellation of bail will be entirely on

different levels. To ask a witness, on whose presence the fine thread

of a fair trial rests, to run from pillar to post is grossly unjust.

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 9082 of 2025 Page 21 of 33

52. Thus, the purpose of the Scheme is to ensure that witnesses, who are

the eyes and ears of justice, are not reduced to silence or falsehood by

threats that invade their psyche. It does not displace or dilute the

established jurisprudence of bail; rather, it works alongside it,

providing a protective canopy so that the existing provisions can

operate in an environment where witnesses are free to testify. This

duality is essential, as the law on bail restrains the accused through

conditions, and prevents any further infractions of intimidation by

cancellation of bail while the Witness Protection Scheme eradicate the

invisible yet potent influence of fear, intimidation or threat, that are

the consequences of the threats made by the accused persons to

maintain the sanctity of trial.

53. Fair Trial requires earnest initiative, on the part of both the State that

represents the collective conscience of society against crimes, and the

courts acting as sentinel on the qui vive to secure that truth is not

suppressed, nor justice subverted, by any external interference. It is

in this light that the Witness Protection Scheme must be understood

in the context of provisions on grant or cancellation of bail

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 9082 of 2025 Page 22 of 33 Principles governing Cancellation of Bail

54. The law on cancellation of bail is well settled through a plethora of

decisions of this Court.

55. In P v. State of M.P. reported in (2022) 15 SCC 211 this Court held

that the grant of bail is always conditional and may be subject to

cancellation, if after the grant of the same there is any supervening

circumstances that impedes fair trial.

“23. In a recent decision of a three-Judge Bench of this Court in Imran v. Mohd. Bhava [Imran v. Mohd. Bhava, (2022) 13 SCC 70] it has been held as follows:

“20. Indeed, it is a well-established principle that once bail has been granted it would require overwhelming circumstances for its cancellation. However, this Court in its judgment in Vipan Kumar Dhir v. State of Punjab [Vipan Kumar Dhir v. State of Punjab, (2021) 15 SCC 518] has also reiterated, that while conventionally, certain supervening circumstances impeding fair trial must develop after granting bail to an accused, for its cancellation by a superior court, bail, can also be revoked by a superior court, when the previous court granting bail has ignored relevant material available on record, gravity of the offence or its societal impact.

It was thus observed :

‘9. … Conventionally, there can be supervening circumstances which may develop post the grant of bail and are non-

conducive to fair trial, making it necessary to cancel the bail. This Court in Dolat Ram

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 9082 of 2025 Page 23 of 33 v. State of Haryana [Dolat Ram v. State of Haryana, (1995) 1 SCC 349 : 1995 SCC (Cri) 237] observed that:

“4. Rejection of bail in a non-bailable case at the initial stage and the cancellation of bail so granted, have to be considered and dealt with on different basis. Very cogent and overwhelming circumstances are necessary for an order directing the cancellation of the bail, already granted. Generally speaking, the grounds for cancellation of bail, broadly (illustrative and not exhaustive) are : interference or attempt to interfere with the due course of administration of justice or evasion or attempt to evade the due course of justice or abuse of the concession granted to the accused in any manner. The satisfaction of the court, on the basis of material placed on the record of the possibility of the accused absconding is yet another reason justifying the cancellation of bail. However, bail once granted should not be cancelled in a mechanical manner without considering whether any supervening circumstances have rendered it no longer conducive to a fair trial to allow the accused to retain his freedom by enjoying the concession of bail during the trial.”

10. These principles have been reiterated time and again, more recently by a three-

Judge Bench of this Court in X v. State of Telangana [X v. State of Telangana, (2018) 16 SCC 511 : (2020) 1 SCC (Cri) 902].

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 9082 of 2025 Page 24 of 33

11. In addition to the caveat illustrated in the cited decision(s), bail can also be revoked where the court has considered irrelevant factors or has ignored relevant material available on record which renders the order granting bail legally untenable. The gravity of the offence, conduct of the accused and societal impact of an undue indulgence by Court when the investigation is at the threshold, are also amongst a few situations, where a Superior Court can interfere in an order of bail to prevent the miscarriage of justice and to bolster the administration of criminal justice system…’ xxx xxx xxx

23. Thus, while considering cancellation of bail already granted by a lower court, would indeed require significant scrutiny at the instance of superior court, however, bail when granted can always be revoked if the relevant material on record, gravity of the offence or its societal impact have not been considered by the lower court. In such instances, where bail is granted in a mechanical manner, the order granting bail is liable to be set aside. Moreover, the decisions cited hereinabove, enumerate certain basic principles which must be borne in mind when deciding upon an application for grant of bail. Thus, while each case has its own unique factual matrix, which assumes a significant role in determination of bail matters, grant of bail must also be exercised by having regard to the abovementioned well-settled principles.”

24. As can be discerned from the above decisions, for cancelling bail once granted, the court must consider whether any supervening circumstances have arisen or the conduct of the accused post grant of bail demonstrates that it is no longer conducive to a fair trial to permit him to retain his freedom by enjoying the concession of bail during trial [Dolat Ram v. State of Haryana, (1995) 1 SCC 349 : 1995 SCC (Cri) 237] . To put it differently, in ordinary circumstances, this Court

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 9082 of 2025 Page 25 of 33 would be loathe to interfere with an order passed by the court below granting bail but if such an order is found to be illegal or perverse or premised on material that is irrelevant, then such an order is susceptible to scrutiny and interference by the appellate court.”

(Emphasis supplied)

56. This Court then summed up the principles or circumstance

governing the cancellation of bail as under: -

“25. Some of the circumstances where bail granted to the accused under Section 439(1)CrPC can be cancelled are enumerated below:

(a) If he misuses his liberty by indulging in similar/other criminal activity;

(b) If he interferes with the course of investigation;

(c) If he attempts to tamper with the evidence;

(d) If he attempts to influence/threaten the witnesses;

(e) If he evades or attempts to evade court proceedings;

(f) If he indulges in activities which would hamper smooth investigation;

(g) If he is likely to flee from the country;

(h) If he attempts to make himself scarce by going underground and/or becoming unavailable to the investigating agency;

(i) If he attempts to place himself beyond the reach of his surety.

(j) If any facts may emerge after the grant of bail which are considered unconducive to a fair trial.

We may clarify that the aforesaid list is only illustrative in nature and not exhaustive.”

(Emphasis supplied)

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 9082 of 2025 Page 26 of 33

57. 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. Considerations for cancellation of bail must

always be on the basis of the well settled principles as discussed

aforesaid. There cannot be any extraneous considerations involved

that are unknown to the law of bails.

58. At the same time, emphasis has to be laid that cancellation of bail

occupies a distinct space in the criminal justice machinery.

Cancellation intervenes at the stage of violation, to prevent

recurrence. In State through Delhi Administration v. Sanjay Gandhi

reported in (1978) 2 SCC 411, this Court underscored that tampering

with witnesses constitutes a cogent ground for cancellation, for the

“opportunity of being on bail cannot be permitted to be abused for the

purpose of thwarting the course of justice.” Similarly, in Raghubir Singh

v. State of Bihar reported in (1986) 4 SCC 481, it was reiterated that

intimidation of witnesses is sufficient to revoke the liberty granted. It

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 9082 of 2025 Page 27 of 33 must be guided by the lodestar of preventing interference with

witnesses that “strikes at the root of the rule of law.”

59. Thus, the considerations that must weigh with the court for setting

aside the bail order on an application being moved by the aggrieved

party include any supervening circumstances that might have

occurred after granting relief to the accused, the conduct of the

accused while on bail, any attempt on the part of the accused to

procrastinate, resulting in delaying the trial, any instance of threats

being extended to the witnesses while on bail, any attempt on the part

of the accused to tamper with the evidence in any manner etc.

The Practice prevailing in the Allahabad High Court

60. Before, we close this matter, we must address ourselves on one very

important aspect that has come to our notice. We have come across a

catena of orders from the Allahabad High Court proceeding on an

incorrect assumption of the law, more particularly that the Witness

Protection Scheme is a substitute for cancellation of bail. According

to the High Court it is an alternative remedy. We are at pains to note

that we came across at least forty recent orders, that have been passed

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 9082 of 2025 Page 28 of 33 in the last one year alone, as per the records available from the official

website of the Allahabad High Court, which are as under: -

S. No. Details of the Case Date of Order 1. Shaym Manohar v. State of U.P. 29.08.2025

Crl. Misc. Bail Cancellation Application No. 26/2024

2. Amar Nath v. State of U.P. & Anr. 28.08.2025 Crl. Misc. Bail Cancellation Application No. 612/2024

3. Dharmendra Kumar Kesarwani v. State of U.P. 01.08.2025 & Anr.

Crl. Misc. Bail Cancellation Application No. 478/2024

4. Ram Narayan Pandey v. State of U.P. 14.07.2025 Crl. Misc. Bail Cancellation Application No. 101/2024

5. Saumya Singh v. State of U.P. & Anr. 10.07.2025 Crl. Misc. Bail Cancellation Application No. 163/2024

6. Meena Devi v. State of U.P. 09.05.2025 Crl. Misc. Bail Cancellation Application No. 387/2024

7. Qadir Husain v. State of U.P. & Anr. 07.07.2025 Crl. Misc. Bail Cancellation Application No. 134/2024

8. Pankaj Dubey v. State of U.P. & Anr. 07.07.2025 Crl. Misc. Bail Cancellation Application No. 71/2025

9. Shiv Ganesh v. State of U.P. & Ors. 03.07.2025 Crl. Misc. Bail Cancellation Application No. 37/2024

10. Arun Kumar Singh v. State of U.P. 02.07.2025 Crl. Misc. Bail Cancellation Application No. 55/2024

11. Ashish Kumar Aggarwal v. State of U.P. & Ors. 01.07.2025 Crl. Misc. Bail Cancellation Application No. 99/2024

12. Ashif v. State of U.P. & Anr. 08.05.2025 Crl. Misc. Bail Cancellation Application No. 237/2024

13. Rajesh Makan v. State of U.P. & Anr. 08.05.2025 Crl. Misc. Bail Cancellation Application No. 113/2024

14. Bakelal v. State of U.P. & Anr. 07.05.2024

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 9082 of 2025 Page 29 of 33 Crl. Misc. Bail Cancellation Application No. 125/2024

15. Sri Krishna v. State of U.P. & Anr. 01.05.2025 Crl. Misc. Bail Cancellation Application No. 83/2025

16. Dharmendra Kumar Kesarwani v. State of 30.04.2025 U.P.& Ors.

Crl. Misc. Bail Cancellation Application No. 306/2024

17. Priya Rana v. State of U.P. & Anr. 30.04.2025 Crl. Misc. Bail Cancellation Application No. 588/2024

18. Ram Milan v. State of U.P. & Ors. 30.04.2025 Crl. Misc. Bail Cancellation Application No. 133/2024

19. Smt. Reena Yadav v. State of U.P. & Anr. 30.04.2025 Crl. Misc. Bail Cancellation Application No. 100/2024

20. Saumya Singh v. State of U.P. & Anr. 25.04.2025 Crl. Misc. Bail Cancellation Application No. 561/2024

21. Archarya Mahant Vivek Das v. State of U.P. & 23.04.2025 Anr.

Crl. Misc. Bail Cancellation Application No. 598/2024

22. Dhanmani Devi v. State of U.P. & Ors. 22.04.2025 Crl. Misc. Bail Cancellation Application No. 135/2025

23. Shyam Manohar v. State of U.P. & Ors. 29.08.2025 Crl. Misc. Bail Cancellation Application No. 26/2024

24. Aleem v. State of U.P. & Anr. 28.08.2025 Crl. Misc. Bail Cancellation Application No. 185/2025

25. Sadar Mohd Khan v. State of U.P. & Anr. 01.08.2025 Crl. Misc. Bail Cancellation Application No. 214/2024

26. Ikbal Jahan v. State of U.P. & Anr. 08.05.2025 Crl. Misc. Bail Cancellation Application No. 437/2024

27. Maina Devi v. State of U.P. & Anr. 01.08.2025 Crl. Misc. Bail Cancellation Application No. 184/2024

28. Smt. Rajmati Devi v. State of U.P. & Anr. 03.07.2025 Crl. Misc. Bail Cancellation Application No. 32/2024

29. Arvind Singh v. State of U.P. & Anr. 09.05.2025

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 9082 of 2025 Page 30 of 33 Crl. Misc. Bail Cancellation Application No. 579/2024

30. Smt. Pooja Sharma v. State of U.P. & Anr. 08.05.2025 Crl. Misc. Bail Cancellation Application No. 424/2024

31. Nagendra Singh Yadav v. State of U.P. & Anr. 21.04.2025 Crl. Misc. Bail Cancellation Application No. 76/2025

32. Mishri Lal Nishad v. State of U.P. & Anr. 23.04.2025 Crl. Misc. Bail Cancellation Application No. 155/2025

33. Shivom Sharma v. State of U.P. & Anr. 30.04.2025 Crl. Misc. Bail Cancellation Application No. 167/2024

34. Shivpujan Pandey v. State of U.P. & Anr. 30.04.2025 Crl. Misc. Bail Cancellation Application No. 587/2024

35. Sikander Patel v. State of U.P. & Anr. 02.05.2025 Crl. Misc. Bail Cancellation Application No. 500/2024

36. Nankoo Bind v. State of U.P. & Anr. 01.05.2025 Crl. Misc. Bail Cancellation Application No. 167/2025

37. Gulshnover v. State of U.P. & Anr. 15.07.2025 Crl. Misc. Bail Cancellation Application No. 171/2024

38. Mubarak Husain v. State of U.P. & Anr. 25.04.2025 Crl. Misc. Bail Cancellation Application No. 158/2025

39. Shiv Singh v. State of U.P. & Anr. 24.04.2025 Crl. Misc. Bail Cancellation Application No. 10/2025

40. Raju v. State of U.P. & Anr. 21.04.2025 Crl. Misc. Bail Cancellation Application No. 103/2025

61. 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

most disturbing feature of all these orders passed is that the Public

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 9082 of 2025 Page 31 of 33 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, who administered threats and caused

intimidation to the witness, in violation of the conditions of his bail

order. We deprecate this practice.

62. In such circumstances, referred to above, 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.

63. After giving an opportunity of hearing to all the Parties concerned

and looking into the report that the High Court may call for from the

I.O., the High Court shall proceed thereafter to pass an appropriate

order in accordance with law.

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 9082 of 2025 Page 32 of 33

64. 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.

65. With the aforesaid, this appeal stands disposed of.

66. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.

67. The Registry is directed to circulate one copy each of this order to all

the High Courts. The Registry is further directed to forthwith send a

copy of this order to the Hon’ble Chief Justice of the Allahabad High

Court.

........................................ J.

(J.B. Pardiwala)

........................................ J.

(Sandeep Mehta)

New Delhi 02nd September,2025.

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 9082 of 2025 Page 33 of 33