Supreme Court Rules Witness Protection Scheme Not a Substitute for Cancellation of Bail; Remands Matter to Allahabad High Court

A Bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and Sandeep Mehta heard an appeal arising from an Allahabad High Court order which had disposed of an application for cancellation of bail by directing the complainant to seek relief under the Witness Protection Scheme, 2018. The question before the Court was whether the High Court could decline to decide a bail-cancellation application on merits by relegating the aggrieved first informant to the Scheme when there was prima facie material of threats to witnesses by the accused.

The Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter for fresh hearing on merits by the High Court after calling for a report from the Investigating Officer, directing that the exercise be completed within four weeks. The Bench emphasised that the Witness Protection Scheme was “curative in nature” and could not be treated as an alternative to the statutory and judicial powers to cancel bail where conditions had been breached. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “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.” The Court also noted that bail was “a conditional liberty” and violation of bail conditions, including threatening witnesses, was a recognized ground for cancellation.

Background

The dispute arose from FIR No. 137 of 2022 registered at Surajpur Police Station, Gautam Budh Nagar, for offences including murder and allied charges. The original first informant (appellant) claimed that the accused (respondent no. 2) was released on bail by the Allahabad High Court on 29.04.2024 subject to specific conditions, including that the accused “will not threaten/ intimidate the prosecution witnesses and victim/complainant.” The appellant alleged that the accused thereafter threatened witnesses and that two further FIRs (Nos. 262 and 740 of 2024) were lodged by a witness, Chahat Ram. The appellant filed an application under Section 439(2) CrPC for cancellation of bail on grounds of breach of conditions.

The High Court, after hearing parties, disposed the cancellation application by observing that the complainant had remedy under the Witness Protection Scheme, 2018 and by granting liberty to file an application under the Scheme for expeditious consideration. The Supreme Court disagreed with that approach, recording that where there was an “outright case of breach of the conditions of the bail order” the High Court should have adjudicated the bail-cancellation application on its merits applying settled principles. The Court traced the legislative and judicial history of witness protection, referred to precedents including Mahender Chawla (where the Scheme was declared operative) and Zahira Habibullah Sheikh, and explained that the Scheme aimed to neutralise the effects of threats while cancellation of bail remained the judicial preventive remedy. The Court criticised a pattern of template orders from the Allahabad High Court that routinely directed complainants to the Scheme instead of considering cancellation petitions, and it remanded the matter for rehearing after the High Court called for an appropriate report from the Investigating Officer. The Registry was directed to circulate the order to all High Courts and to the Chief Justice of the Allahabad High Court.

Case Details: Case No.: Criminal Appeal No. 3830 of 2025 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 9082 of 2025) Case Title: Phireram v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Rishi Malhotra (Senior Counsel) For the Respondent(s): Mr. Vijendra Singh (learned counsel for the State); Mr. Nitin Saluja (learned counsel for respondent no. 2)