The Supreme Court of India, in the case of Phireram vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr., has held that the Witness Protection Scheme, 2018, cannot be treated as an alternative remedy to the cancellation of bail when an accused violates bail conditions by threatening witnesses. A division bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice Sandeep Mehta set aside an order of the Allahabad High Court that had disposed of a bail cancellation application by directing the complainant to seek protection under the scheme. The apex court remanded the matter to the High Court for a fresh decision on its merits.
Case Background
The case originated from an FIR lodged by the appellant, Phireram, at Surajpur Police Station, Gautam Budh Nagar, for offences including murder and criminal conspiracy under Sections 302, 201, 364, and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The accused, Respondent No. 2, was granted bail by the High Court on April 29, 2024, subject to several conditions, including that he “will not threaten/intimidate the prosecution witnesses and victim/complainant” and “will not tamper with the prosecution evidence.”
The appellant alleged that after his release, the accused began threatening witnesses. Subsequently, two separate FIRs (No. 262 of 2024 and No. 740 of 2024) were lodged by a witness, Chahat Ram, at the same police station, alleging threats from the accused. Citing these violations, the appellant filed an application under Section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, before the Allahabad High Court, seeking cancellation of the accused’s bail.
High Court’s Order and Arguments in the Supreme Court
The Allahabad High Court, in its order dated April 11, 2025, disposed of the bail cancellation application, stating that the complainant had a remedy under the Witness Protection Scheme, 2018. The High Court opined that the application could 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.” It granted the complainant liberty to file an application before the competent authority under the scheme.
Before the Supreme Court, counsel for the accused argued that he was not issued a notice and was not heard by the High Court. The counsel for the State of Uttar Pradesh, upon instructions from the Investigating Officer, submitted that the officer had “found some substance in the allegations levelled by the appellant as regards the administration of threats to the witnesses by the respondent no. 2.”
Supreme Court’s Analysis: A “Curious Order”
The Supreme Court termed the High Court’s order “very curious” and held that the application for bail cancellation should have been decided on its own merits by applying well-settled principles of law. The bench noted the irony that the High Court, which had imposed the bail conditions, failed to adjudicate upon their alleged breach.
The judgment provided a detailed analysis of the distinction between the Witness Protection Scheme and the provisions for bail cancellation.
Witness Protection Scheme is Curative, Not an Alternative
The Court explained the salutary object of the Witness Protection Scheme, 2018, tracing its origins through various Law Commission reports and the landmark decision in Mahender Chawla v. Union of India (2019). The bench clarified that the scheme was conceived as a “remedial and curative measure, designed to neutralise the effects of threats once they have materialised,” not as a substitute for bail cancellation.
The Court 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.”
Bail cancellation, the Court stated, is a “preventive and supervisory function of the criminal court,” flowing from its inherent power to ensure justice. In contrast, witness protection is a “positive obligation of the State.”
Principles Governing Cancellation of Bail
Reiterating the established law, the Court cited P v. State of M.P. (2022) and listed illustrative circumstances for cancelling bail, which include:
- Misuse of liberty by indulging in criminal activity.
- Interference with the course of investigation.
- Attempting to tamper with evidence or influence/threaten witnesses.
- Evading court proceedings.
The Court emphasized that when an accused tampers with evidence or threatens witnesses, “the indulgence of bail is to be withdrawn.”
Deprecation of Allahabad High Court’s Practice
The Supreme Court expressed strong disapproval of a recurring practice at the Allahabad High Court. The bench noted that it had come across at least forty “cyclostyled template orders” passed in the last year alone, which were “a verbatim copy of each other,” all incorrectly treating the Witness Protection Scheme as a substitute for deciding bail cancellation pleas.
“We are dismayed to note that the aforesaid practice of passing cyclostyled template orders has been in vogue past more than two years,” the bench stated. It also criticized the role of the Public Prosecutor, who, “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.” The Court concluded, “We deprecate this practice.”
Final Decision
The Supreme Court set aside the impugned order of the Allahabad High Court and remanded the matter for fresh consideration. The High Court has been directed to:
- Rehear the bail cancellation application on its own merits.
- Call for an appropriate report from the Investigating Officer regarding the two FIRs lodged by the witness.
- Pass an appropriate order in accordance with the law within four weeks after providing an opportunity of hearing to all parties.
The Registry was directed to circulate a copy of the judgment to all High Courts and to send a copy forthwith to the Chief Justice of the Allahabad High Court.
