State of Uttar Pradesh - The Legal Chamber

Witness Protection vs. Bail Cancellation: Supreme Court Explains the Crucial Difference

7Oct

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Witness Protection vs. Bail Cancellation: Supreme Court Explains the Crucial Difference

This Supreme Court judgment clarifies the distinct legal roles of bail cancellation and the Witness Protection Scheme, 2018. The Supreme Court held that the Scheme is a curative measure to protect witnesses, while bail cancellation is a judicial remedy for violations of bail conditions. The existence of the Scheme cannot be a ground to deny cancellation of bail when an accused intimidates witnesses, as these are separate legal avenues serving different purposes. Facts Of The Case: The case originated from an FIR (No. 137 of 2022) lodged by the appellant, Phireram, for offences including murder and conspiracy under the IPC. The accused were arrested and subsequently granted bail by the High Court, subject to specific conditions prohibiting them from threatening witnesses or tampering with...

Affidavits & Fair Trial: Why the Supreme Court Overturned a Murder Conviction

The Supreme Court acquitted the appellants, setting aside their conviction under Sections 302 and 307 read with Section 34 of the IPC, due to serious doubts about the prosecution's case. The investigation was deemed unfair because the investigating officer suppressed affidavits from three eyewitnesses (PW-5, PW-6, PW-7) that favored the accused, and failed to conduct further investigation based on these affidavits. The Court found it unsafe to convict solely on PW-4's testimony given the suppressed material. Facts Of The Case: Sakhawat and Mehndi, appellant nos. 1 and 2 respectively, appealed a judgment from the High Court of Allahabad dated October 9, 2018, which upheld their conviction for offenses under Section 302 and Section 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (I...

UP Gangster Act Misuse? Supreme Court Sets Guidelines for Fair Enforcement

The Supreme Court quashed criminal proceedings under the UP Gangsters Act, emphasizing that a gang chart's approval requires independent application of mind by authorities and cannot be based solely on prior FIRs, especially without overt acts, violence, or economic gain. The judgment clarified the stringent conditions necessary for invoking the Act and upheld the importance of due process in such cases. Facts Of The Case: The case involved a criminal appeal against a High Court judgment that refused to quash proceedings initiated under the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters & Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, against the appellant, Vinod Bihari Lal. The appellant was implicated in a "gang chart" based on previous FIRs. He sought to quash the proceedings and non-bailable warrants i...