The Supreme Court strongly criticised the Allahabad High Court for issuing cyclostyled template orders in bail cancellation matters, where, instead of examining allegations that the accused had threatened witnesses, the High Court directed complainants to seek recourse under the Witness Protection Scheme.
The bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Sandeep Mehta noted that in the last year alone, it had come across forty such orders of the High Court where, instead of deciding applications seeking cancellation of bail on the ground of threats by the accused, the court treated the Witness Protection Scheme as an alternative remedy and directed complainants to apply under it.
“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… 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 court said.
Further, the Court also lamented the public prosecutors for not assisting the Court in the right direction, and instead urged the Courts to ask the complainants to avail remedy under the Witness Protection Scheme.
"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.”, the Court added.
Last month, a bench led by Justice Pardiwala had directed that a Judge of the Allahabad High Court should not be given criminal jurisdiction. After the order created a controversy, Justice Pardiwala's bench recalled the direction, following a request by the CJI.
Background
The complainant had filed an FIR for serious offences, including murder. The accused was granted bail with conditions not to threaten witnesses or tamper with evidence. Subsequently, two fresh FIRs were lodged alleging threats to a witness. Seeking cancellation of bail, the complainant moved the High Court under Section 439(2) Cr.P.C.
Instead of examining whether bail conditions had been violated, the High Court directed the complainant to seek relief under the Witness Protection Scheme, 2018.
Setting aside the High Court's decision, the Supreme Court stressed that the existence of the Scheme can by no stretch be a consideration to decline to cancel bail where there is prima facie evidence of intimidation. To hold otherwise, it said, would “render the provisions of bail cancellation otiose and thereby make a mockery of the conditions imposed while granting bail.”
“The existence of a Witness Protection Scheme can by no stretch be a consideration to decline to cancel the bail, even when there is primafacie 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, that has the potency to pollute the streams of justice is simpliciter brushed aside on the pretext of some form of alternative remedy.”, the court added.
Resultantly, the appeal was allowed, and the case was remanded to the High Court for reconsideration on the merits.
Cause Title: PHIRERAM VERSUS STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 872
