Phireram vs. State Of Uttar Pradesh

REPORTABLE
2025 INSC 1074
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)




O R D E R

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

th

29. The 198 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
th
instructive. The 4 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
th
Law Commission in its 154 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. State v . Captain Jagjit Singh AIR 1962 SC 253
As held in reported in
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. v. 2023 SCC OnLine SC
In Munilakshmi Narendra Babu reported in
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
NHRC v. State of Gujarat
neither possible nor endeavoured. In
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
certain supervening
conventionally,
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: -

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 9082 of 2025 Page 29 of 33

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 9082 of 2025 Page 30 of 33

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
nd
02 September,2025.


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