PHIRERAMversusSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.

          [2025] 10 S.C.R. 1 : 2025 INSC 1074

                        Phireram
                             v.
              State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.
             (Criminal Appeal No. 3830 of 2025)
                      02 September 2025
       [J.B. Pardiwala and Sandeep Mehta, JJ.]


                    Issue for Consideration
Whether the High Court erred in passing the impugned order,
by which it disposed of the application filed by the appellant-
complainant seeking cancellation of bail of the accused persons
on the ground of threats being administered to the witnesses in
violation of the condition imposed at the time of release on bail,
holding that the appellant as an aggrieved person had a remedy
under Witness Protection Scheme, 2018 and declining to cancel
the bail of the accused persons.

                           Headnotes†
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – s.439(2) – Cancellation of
bail – Witness Protection Scheme, 2018 – FIR registered,
accused persons were arrested and thereafter were released
on bail by the High Court, subject to certain terms and
conditions – Case of the appellant-complainant that thereafter,
respondent no.2-accused started administering threats to
the witnesses – FIRs lodged by the witness to whom threats
were administered – Appellant sought cancellation of bail
of the accused persons on the ground that threats were
being administered to the witnesses and thus, there was
violation of the conditions imposed at the time of release on
bail – High Court declined to cancel the bail and held that
appellant has remedy under the Witness Protection Scheme,
2018 – Challenge to:
Held: 1.1 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 – The Witness Protection Scheme is not an alternative
to the provisions of the erstwhile CrPC and the Bharatiya Nagarik
2                                                              [2025] 10 S.C.R.

                          Supreme Court Reports


     Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 in so far as cancellation of bail
     is concerned. [Paras 18, 19]
     1.2 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 – The existence of a Witness Protection Scheme
     cannot 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.
     [Paras 18, 39]
     1.3 Violation of conditions of bail 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 – Courts cannot abdicate their role on the pretext that
     since the State has a scheme for protecting witnesses, they shall
     not exercise their jurisdiction to cancel bail even though conditions
     have been violated. [Paras 42, 44]
     1.4 From a bare perusal of the Scheme, it is evident 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 – Witness Protection Scheme 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 – 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. [Paras 47, 52]
     1.5 The considerations that must weigh with the court for setting
     aside the bail order 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
[2025] 10 S.C.R.                                                           3

                Phireram v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.


     in any manner etc – Impugned order set aside, matter remanded
     to the High Court. [Paras 59, 62]

     Cancellation of Bail – Witness Protection Scheme, 2018 –
     Witness Protection Scheme vis-à-vis provisions on grant or
     cancellation of bail – Witness Protection Scheme, 2018 is
     curative in nature while bail cancellation is a preventive –
     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 Witness
     Protection Scheme:
     Held: The Witness Protection Scheme is a remedial and curative
     measure, designed to neutralise the effects of threats once they
     have materialised – Whereas, bail cancellation is a preventive
     and supervisory function of the criminal court, whose very duty 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 – The protection granted
     by the Scheme is limited – Effect of cancellation of bail, when
     the accused person so released, violated any of the conditions
     imposed therein, stated. [Para 38, 45, 52]
     Judicial Deprecation – Witness Protection Scheme, 2018 –
     Not a substitute for cancellation of bail – Practice prevailing
     in the Allahabad High Court wherein catena of cyclostyled
     template orders are being passed proceeding on an incorrect
     assumption of the law that the Witness Protection Scheme is a
     substitute for cancellation of bail – Deprecated. [Paras 60, 61]
     Cancellation of Bail – Principles governing – Discussed.
     [Paras 57-59]
     Witness Protection Scheme, 2018 – Legislative history; scope,
     object and purpose of – Discussed. [Paras 19-30, 46, 50-52]

                              Case Law Cited
     Zahira Habibullah Sheikh v. State of Gujarat [2004] 3 SCR 1050 :
     (2004) 4 SCC 158; Mahender Chawla v. Union of India [2018]
     14 SCR 627 : (2019) 14 SCC 615; Gudikanti Narasimhulu v.
     Public Prosecutor, A.P. [1978] 2 SCR 371 : (1978) 1 SCC 240;
     State v. Captain Jagjit Singh [1962] 3 SCR 622 : AIR 1962
     SC 253; Hari v. State of U.P. [2021] 10 SCR 1022 : (2021) 17
4                                                             [2025] 10 S.C.R.

                          Supreme Court Reports


     SCC 111; Munilakshmi v. Narendra Babu [2023] 14 SCR 1058 :
     2023 SCC OnLine SC 1380; NHRC v. State of Gujarat [2009]
     7 SCR 236 : (2009) 6 SCC 767; P v. State of M.P. [2022] 3
     SCR 823 : (2022) 15 SCC 211; Dolat Ram v. State of Haryana
     [1994] Supp. 6 SCR 69 : (1995) 1 SCC 349; State through Delhi
     Administration v. Sanjay Gandhi [1978] 3 SCR 950 : (1978) 2
     SCC 411; Raghubir Singh v. State of Bihar [1986] 3 SCR 802 :
     (1986) 4 SCC 481 – referred to.

                       Books and Periodicals Cited
     14th Report of the Law Commission of India, “Reform of Judicial
     Administration”, 1958; 154th Report of the Law Commission,
     “Code of Criminal Procedure”, 1996; Malimath Committee Report,
     “Reforms of Criminal Justice System”, 2003; 198th Report of
     the Law Commission in 2006, “Witness Identity Protection and
     Witness Protection Programmes”; 4th Report of the National Police
     Commission, 1980 – referred to.

                                 List of Acts
     Witness Protection Scheme, 2018; Criminal Procedure Code, 1973;
     Penal Code, 1860; Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

                              List of Keywords
     Witness Protection Scheme, 2018; Witness Protection Scheme not
     an alternative to CrPC for cancellation of bail; Cancellation of bail;
     Threats to the witnesses; Violation of conditions of bail; Breach of
     the conditions of the bail; Denying the cancellation of bail; Abusing
     the liberty; Declined to cancel the bail; Fear; Intimidation; Threat;
     Tampering with the evidence; Witness Protection Scheme; Remedial
     measure; Curative measure; Bail cancellation; Conditions for the
     grant or cancellation of bail; Witnesses turning hostile; Protection to
     witnesses of heinous crimes and crimes against women; Remedy
     under the Witness Protection Scheme.

                             Case Arising From
     CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
     3830 of 2025
     From the Judgment and Order dated 11.04.2025 of the High Court
     of Judicature at Allahabad in CRMBCA No. 93 of 2025
[2025] 10 S.C.R.                                                          5

                Phireram v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.


                         Appearances for Parties
     Advs. for the Appellant:
     Rishi Malhotra, Sr. Adv., Ms. Ansuiya, Shivaansh Maini, Vansh
     Vij, Prem Malhotra.
     Advs. for the Respondents:
     Dr. Vijendra Singh, Aniket Tiwari, Nitin Saluja, Akshay Dev, Anurag
     Singh, Satya Kam Sharma.

                Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

                                   Order

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.
6                                                          [2025] 10 S.C.R.

                         Supreme Court Reports


          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.”).
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-
[2025] 10 S.C.R.                                                           7

                Phireram v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.


     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)

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.
8                                                          [2025] 10 S.C.R.

                         Supreme Court Reports


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
    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 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.
[2025] 10 S.C.R.                                                         9

                Phireram v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.


     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.
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
    had been echoed as early as 1958, more particularly in the 14th
    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 under
10                                                         [2025] 10 S.C.R.

                         Supreme Court Reports


      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 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.
29. The 198th 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 decision in the
[2025] 10 S.C.R.                                                         11

                Phireram v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.


     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 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
    instructive. The 4th 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 Law Commission in its 154th Report remarked
    that “the menace of intimidation has assumed dimensions far beyond
    the reach of provisions relating to bail and cancellation”.
34. The aforesaid observations underscore that a dedicated scheme
    on witness protection was a result of the imperative need to
12                                                            [2025] 10 S.C.R.

                           Supreme Court Reports


      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.
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
    reason for imposition of conditions for grant of bail, if its violation,
    that has the potency to pollute the streams of justice is simpliciter
    brushed aside on the pretext of some form of alternative remedy.
[2025] 10 S.C.R.                                                       13

                Phireram v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.


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
    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. As held in State v. Captain Jagjit Singh reported in AIR 1962 SC
    253 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 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
14                                                        [2025] 10 S.C.R.

                         Supreme Court Reports


      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:
           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
[2025] 10 S.C.R.                                                          15

                Phireram v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.


     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 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. In Munilakshmi v. Narendra Babu reported in 2023 SCC OnLine
    SC 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: -
          “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.
16                                                          [2025] 10 S.C.R.

                          Supreme Court Reports


           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 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 neither possible nor endeavoured. In NHRC v. State of Gujarat
    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.
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
[2025] 10 S.C.R.                                                          17

                Phireram v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.


     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

     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 conventionally,
                certain supervening 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
18                                                [2025] 10 S.C.R.

               Supreme Court Reports


      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 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
[2025] 10 S.C.R.                                                          19

                Phireram v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.


                       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].
                     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
20                                                        [2025] 10 S.C.R.

                        Supreme Court Reports


              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 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;
[2025] 10 S.C.R.                                                            21

                 Phireram v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.


           (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)

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 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.
22                                                             [2025] 10 S.C.R.

                          Supreme Court Reports


      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 in the last one year alone, as per the records
    available from the official website of the Allahabad High Court,
    which are as under: -

       S.                   Details of the Case                       Date of
       No.                                                             Order
        1.   Shaym Manohar v. State of U.P.                          29.08.2025
             Crl. Misc. Bail Cancellation Application No. 26/2024
        2.   Amar Nath v. State of U.P. & Anr.                       28.08.2025
             Crl. Misc. Bail Cancellation Application No. 612/2024
        3.   Dharmendra Kumar Kesarwani v. State of U.P. & Anr.      01.08.2025
             Crl. Misc. Bail Cancellation Application No. 478/2024
        4.   Ram Narayan Pandey v. State of U.P.                     14.07.2025
             Crl. Misc. Bail Cancellation Application No. 101/2024
        5.   Saumya Singh v. State of U.P. & Anr.                    10.07.2025
             Crl. Misc. Bail Cancellation Application No. 163/2024
        6.   Meena Devi v. State of U.P.                             09.05.2025
             Crl. Misc. Bail Cancellation Application No. 387/2024
        7.   Qadir Husain v. State of U.P. & Anr.                    07.07.2025
             Crl. Misc. Bail Cancellation Application No. 134/2024
        8.   Pankaj Dubey v. State of U.P. & Anr.                    07.07.2025
             Crl. Misc. Bail Cancellation Application No. 71/2025

        9.   Shiv Ganesh v. State of U.P. & Ors.                     03.07.2025
             Crl. Misc. Bail Cancellation Application No. 37/2024
       10.   Arun Kumar Singh v. State of U.P.                       02.07.2025
             Crl. Misc. Bail Cancellation Application No. 55/2024
       11.   Ashish Kumar Aggarwal v. State of U.P. & Ors.           01.07.2025
             Crl. Misc. Bail Cancellation Application No. 99/2024
[2025] 10 S.C.R.                                                             23

                Phireram v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.



       12.   Ashif v. State of U.P. & Anr.                           08.05.2025
             Crl. Misc. Bail Cancellation Application No. 237/2024
       13.   Rajesh Makan v. State of U.P. & Anr.                    08.05.2025
             Crl. Misc. Bail Cancellation Application No. 113/2024
       14.   Bakelal v. State of U.P. & Anr.                         07.05.2024
             Crl. Misc. Bail Cancellation Application No. 125/2024
       15.   Sri Krishna v. State of U.P. & Anr.                     01.05.2025
             Crl. Misc. Bail Cancellation Application No. 83/2025
       16.   Dharmendra Kumar Kesarwani v. State of U.P.& Ors.       30.04.2025
             Crl. Misc. Bail Cancellation Application No. 306/2024
       17.   Priya Rana v. State of U.P. & Anr.                      30.04.2025
             Crl. Misc. Bail Cancellation Application No. 588/2024
       18.   Ram Milan v. State of U.P. & Ors.                       30.04.2025
             Crl. Misc. Bail Cancellation Application No. 133/2024
       19.   Smt. Reena Yadav v. State of U.P. & Anr.                30.04.2025
             Crl. Misc. Bail Cancellation Application No. 100/2024
       20.   Saumya Singh v. State of U.P. & Anr.                    25.04.2025
             Crl. Misc. Bail Cancellation Application No. 561/2024
       21.   Archarya Mahant Vivek Das v. State of U.P. & Anr.       23.04.2025
             Crl. Misc. Bail Cancellation Application No. 598/2024
       22.   Dhanmani Devi v. State of U.P. & Ors.                   22.04.2025
             Crl. Misc. Bail Cancellation Application No. 135/2025
       23.   Shyam Manohar v. State of U.P. & Ors.                   29.08.2025
             Crl. Misc. Bail Cancellation Application No. 26/2024
       24.   Aleem v. State of U.P. & Anr.                           28.08.2025
             Crl. Misc. Bail Cancellation Application No. 185/2025
       25.   Sadar Mohd Khan v. State of U.P. & Anr.                 01.08.2025
             Crl. Misc. Bail Cancellation Application No. 214/2024
       26.   Ikbal Jahan v. State of U.P. & Anr.                     08.05.2025
             Crl. Misc. Bail Cancellation Application No. 437/2024
       27.   Maina Devi v. State of U.P. & Anr.                      01.08.2025
             Crl. Misc. Bail Cancellation Application No. 184/2024
       28.   Smt. Rajmati Devi v. State of U.P. & Anr.               03.07.2025
             Crl. Misc. Bail Cancellation Application No. 32/2024
24                                                             [2025] 10 S.C.R.

                          Supreme Court Reports



       29.   Arvind Singh v. State of U.P. & Anr.                    09.05.2025
             Crl. Misc. Bail Cancellation Application No. 579/2024
       30.   Smt. Pooja Sharma v. State of U.P. & Anr.               08.05.2025
             Crl. Misc. Bail Cancellation Application No. 424/2024
       31.   Nagendra Singh Yadav v. State of U.P. & Anr.            21.04.2025
             Crl. Misc. Bail Cancellation Application No. 76/2025
       32.   Mishri Lal Nishad v. State of U.P. & Anr.               23.04.2025
             Crl. Misc. Bail Cancellation Application No. 155/2025
       33.   Shivom Sharma v. State of U.P. & Anr.                   30.04.2025
             Crl. Misc. Bail Cancellation Application No. 167/2024
       34.   Shivpujan Pandey v. State of U.P. & Anr.                30.04.2025
             Crl. Misc. Bail Cancellation Application No. 587/2024
       35.   Sikander Patel v. State of U.P. & Anr.                  02.05.2025
             Crl. Misc. Bail Cancellation Application No. 500/2024
       36.   Nankoo Bind v. State of U.P. & Anr.                     01.05.2025
             Crl. Misc. Bail Cancellation Application No. 167/2025
       37.   Gulshnover v. State of U.P. & Anr.                      15.07.2025
             Crl. Misc. Bail Cancellation Application No. 171/2024
       38.   Mubarak Husain v. State of U.P. & Anr.                  25.04.2025
             Crl. Misc. Bail Cancellation Application No. 158/2025
       39.   Shiv Singh v. State of U.P. & Anr.                      24.04.2025
             Crl. Misc. Bail Cancellation Application No. 10/2025
       40.   Raju v. State of U.P. & Anr.                            21.04.2025
             Crl. Misc. Bail Cancellation Application No. 103/2025


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
    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.
[2025] 10 S.C.R.                                                       25

                   Phireram v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.


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.
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.

     Result of the case: Appeal disposed of.




     †
         Headnotes prepared by: Divya Pandey