2025 Supreme(SC) 1647

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J.B. PARDIWALA, SANDEEP MEHTA, JJ.
Phireram – Appellant
Versus
State Of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 3830 of 2025 [Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 9082 of 2025]
Decided on : 02-09-2025

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Cancellation of bail – Considerations for cancellation of bail must always be on the basis of well settled principles – Intimidation of witnesses is sufficient to revoke liberty granted.
(2) Witness Protection Scheme – A criminal justice system that cannot protect its witnesses cannot protect its citizens – Right to fair trial is meaningless if witnesses cannot come forward to depose without fear.
(3) Existence of a Witness Protection Scheme cannot be a consideration to decline to cancel bail, even when there is prima facie material indicating that accused administered threats or caused intimidation to witnesses.

Headnote:

(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 439(2) – Grant of bail – Petition for cancellation – When it is an outright case of breach of conditions of bail order and when original first informant is able to prima facie demonstrate in what manner accused person is abusing liberty granted to him, then, in such circumstances, provisions of Witness Protection Scheme, 2018 have hardly any role to play – This Scheme has nothing to do as such when complainant seeks cancellation of bail on the ground of threats being administered to witnesses – Witness Protection Scheme is not an alternative to provisions of erstwhile Cr.P.C. and Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 in so far as cancellation of bail is concerned – There is fine but pertinent distinction between grant of bail and its cancellation on the ground of violation of conditions of bail order and affording of protection to a witness under the Scheme – Witness Protection Scheme is a remedial and curative measure, designed to neutralise effects of threats once they have materialised – Bail cancellation, on other hand, is a preventive and supervisory function of criminal court, whose very duty it is to ensure that trial proceeds unpolluted by intimidation – Former is a positive obligation of State, whereas latter is judicial in nature, flowing from inherent power of courts to ensure that justice is done under its watch. (Paras 18, 37 and 38)

(B) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 439(2) – Grant of bail – Petition for cancellation – Discretion of granting bail is guided by considerations of likelihood of abscondence, tampering of evidence, and intimidation of witnesses – Existence of a Witness Protection Scheme cannot be a consideration to decline to cancel bail, even when there is prima facie material indicating that accused administered threats or caused intimidation to witnesses – 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 norm and detention an exception, subject however to overriding imperative that liberty should not be abused to thwart course of justice – When bail is granted, it is not an untrammelled licence to act as one pleases – Standards applied in a case of seeking witness protection and cancellation of bail will be entirely on different levels. (Paras 39, 40, 41 and 51)

(C) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 439(2) – Cancellation of bail – Governing principle is that if accused tampers with evidence, threatens witnesses, or attempts to subvert trial, indulgence of bail is to be withdrawn – It is a recognition that liberty is conditional, not absolute, and subject always to larger interest of ensuring fair trial – Considerations for cancellation of bail must always be on the basis of well settled principles – There cannot be any extraneous considerations involved that are unknown to law of bails – Cancellation of bail occupies a distinct space in criminal justice machinery – Cancellation intervenes at stage of violation, to prevent recurrence – Intimidation of witnesses is sufficient to revoke liberty granted – Considerations that must weigh with court for setting aside bail order on application being moved by aggrieved party include any supervening circumstances that might have occurred after granting relief to accused, conduct of accused while on bail, any attempt on part of accused to procrastinate, resulting in delaying trial, any instance of threats being extended to witnesses while on bail, any attempt on part of accused to tamper with evidence in any manner – Impugned order passed by High Court set aside and matter remanded to High Court to rehear application for cancellation of bail on its own merits. (Paras 57, 58, 59 and 62)

(D) Witness Protection Scheme, 2018 – Object and Purpose – Without protection and support, witnesses cannot discharge their solemn role, and criminal justice loses both its purpose and legitimacy – Criminal justice rests upon testimony of witnesses – It is they who bring before court truth of events, identity of offender, and sequence of acts which constitute offence – Quality of justice depends to a large extent on testimony of witnesses and unless witnesses are able to depose freely, entire process would be reduced to futility – Without testimony of witnesses, justice cannot be done – Delay, harassment, and intimidation cause a collapse of faith in criminal justice – A witness who is unable to depose freely is a liability, not an asset, to system – A criminal justice system that cannot protect its witnesses cannot protect its citizens – Fair trial is not only right of accused but also of victim and of society – Right to fair trial is meaningless if witnesses cannot come forward to depose without fear – True purpose of Witness Protection Scheme is to eradicate corrosive effect that intimidation and threats, whether overt or covert, have upon witness’s ability to speak truth fearlessly – It is to address insidious psychological impact on minds of witnesses and eliminate climate of fear, that may cloud testimony of witnesses during trial. (Paras 21, 22, 26, 27, 34 and 36)

Facts of the case:

Present 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, by which application filed by the appellant herein-the original complainant seeking to get bail of accused persons cancelled on the ground that they are administering threats to the witnesses came to be finally disposed of with some directions.

Findings of Court:

After giving an opportunity of hearing to all Parties concerned and looking into report that High Court may call for from I.O., High Court shall proceed thereafter to pass an appropriate order in accordance with law.

Result : Appeal dismissed.