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 evidence. The appellant, the original complainant, later approached the High Court seeking cancellation of the accused’s bail under Section 439(2) of the CrPC. He alleged that the accused, specifically respondent no. 2, were blatantly violating their bail conditions by repeatedly administering threats to the witnesses, a claim substantiated by two additional FIRs registered based on complaints from a key witness. Instead of adjudicating the merits of the bail cancellation application, the High Court disposed of it by directing the appellant to seek recourse under the Witness Protection Scheme, 2018. This led the appellant to appeal to the Supreme Court, contending that the High Court had erred by substituting the statutory remedy of bail cancellation with the separate mechanism of witness protection.
Procedural History:
The procedural history of this case commenced with the appellant, the original complainant, filing a bail cancellation application before the Allahabad High Court. This application was made under Section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking to cancel the bail granted to the accused on the grounds that they were intimidating witnesses, thereby violating their bail conditions. The High Court, however, did not adjudicate the merits of this application. Instead, in its order dated April 11, 2025, it disposed of the matter by directing the appellant to avail the remedy under the Witness Protection Scheme, 2018, effectively treating it as an alternative to bail cancellation. Aggrieved by this order, the appellant filed a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court of India. The Supreme Court granted leave, and in its final judgment dated September 2, 2025, set aside the High Court’s impugned order and remanded the bail cancellation application back to the High Court for a fresh decision on its merits.
READ ALSO:Supreme Court Grants Virtual Visitation Rights in International Child Custody Case
Court Observation:
The Supreme Court made several critical observations, clarifying the distinct roles of bail cancellation and the Witness Protection Scheme (WPS). It held that the WPS is a curative and remedial measure imposed by the State to protect witnesses and neutralize threats. In contrast, bail cancellation is a judicial, preventive, and supervisory function to punish the accused for violating bail conditions and to prevent the abuse of liberty, which pollutes the stream of justice. The Court emphatically stated that the existence of the WPS is not a substitute or alternative remedy for cancelling bail when its conditions are breached. It observed that the Allahabad High Court fell into a grave error by relegating the complainant to the WPS, thereby abdicating its judicial duty. The Court further deprecated the High Court’s practice of passing cyclostyled template orders in numerous bail cancellation applications based on this incorrect legal premise.
Final Decision & Judgement:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned order of the High Court. The Court remanded the matter back to the High Court with a direction to rehear the appellant’s bail cancellation application on its own merits, in accordance with the well-settled principles governing bail cancellation. The High Court was directed to call for a report from the Investigating Officer concerning the two FIRs where threats to witnesses were alleged and, after giving an opportunity of hearing to all parties, pass an appropriate order within four weeks. The Registry was directed to circulate the judgment to all High Courts and send a copy to the Chief Justice of the Allahabad High Court.
Case Details:
Case Title: Phireram vs State Of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. Citation: 2025 INSC 1074 Criminal Appeal No.: Criminal Appeal No. 3830 of 2025 Date of Judgement: 2nd September, 2025 Judges/Justice Name: Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice Sandeep Mehta
Download The Judgement Here