The Supreme Court criticised Allahabad HC for passing template orders treating the Witness Protection Scheme, 2018 as a bail substitute. The bench said such orders undermine established bail laws and weaken judicial authority.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on 2 September 2025 strongly criticised the practice followed by the Allahabad High Court of passing cyclostyled template orders while wrongly assuming that the Witness Protection Scheme, 2018 could be treated as a substitute for cancellation of bail.
A bench of Justices J B Pardiwala and Sandeep Mehta expressed displeasure over the manner in which the High Court has been disposing of such matters.
ALSO READ: Sameer Wankhede’s Sister Challenges Police Clean Chit to Nawab Malik in Defamation Case
The bench noted,
“According to the High Court, scheme is an alternative remedy. We are at pains to note that we came across at least 40 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.”
The judges also mentioned that a list of such cases with order dates was annexed, pointing out that the orders were a verbatim copy of each other. They added that this practice of passing template orders has been going on for more than two years.
What troubled the Supreme Court further was the role of public prosecutors. Instead of guiding judges with the correct legal position, they themselves suggested that complainants should seek protection under the 2018 scheme instead of pressing for cancellation of bail—even in cases where accused persons allegedly threatened or intimidated witnesses in violation of bail conditions.
The case before the Supreme Court was filed by Phireram, who had moved the Allahabad High Court seeking cancellation of bail of the accused in a murder case, stating that they had extended threats to him.
However, the High Court disposed of his plea by directing him to take recourse under the Witness Protection Scheme. Phireram had also lodged two FIRs in 2024 about the threats.
The Supreme Court set aside that order and sent the matter back to the High Court, directing it to hear the cancellation plea on its merits.
The bench called the order passed by the High Court “very curious” and observed that the correct approach should have been to apply settled legal principles governing cancellation of bail.
The court made it clear that when bail conditions are breached and the complainant can show a prima facie case that the accused is misusing the liberty given to him, then the Witness Protection Scheme has no application.
The bench stated that the scheme was never designed to replace provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure or the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in matters of bail cancellation.
Tracing the history of the scheme, the court recalled that several committees had highlighted the need for a witness protection mechanism because of the increasing incidents of witnesses turning hostile due to threats and pressure.
The court explained that even though provisions already existed in law for cancellation of bail in case of interference with witnesses, the Witness Protection Scheme was meant to protect witnesses from intimidation so that they could testify freely during trial.
The judges drew a sharp line between the two concepts. They said the scheme is meant to provide protection after threats are made, while bail cancellation is preventive in nature, ensuring that intimidation does not affect the trial.
The bench observed that the Witness Protection Scheme is a positive obligation of the State, while cancellation of bail comes from the judicial power of courts to safeguard justice. Substituting one for the other, they said, weakens the courts’ authority and makes bail conditions meaningless.
They stressed that bail is not just a routine order releasing a person, but a recognition of liberty, subject to conditions that it should not be misused to obstruct justice.
They pointed out that conditions imposed under Sections 437(3) or 439(2) of the CrPC are serious obligations and cannot be ignored by calling the scheme an alternative remedy.
The bench also highlighted that the Witness Protection Scheme applies only to serious crimes like offences punishable with death, life imprisonment or imprisonment of seven years and above, and certain offences against women.
But it cannot be treated as a universal solution. The judges said that the standards for granting protection and for cancelling bail are very different, and forcing a complainant to seek protection instead of moving for cancellation of bail is unfair.
ALSO READ: Delhi Court: Wife Living in Adultery Cannot Claim Maintenance, Rules Judge
They concluded that the scheme was meant to prevent witnesses from being silenced or forced into falsehood by threats, but it does not replace the legal principles on bail. Both the scheme and bail cancellation work together but serve different purposes to ensure fair trial proceedings.
The Supreme Court also directed circulation of its judgment to all High Courts, and specifically to the Chief Justice of the Allahabad High Court for necessary corrective steps.
Case Title:
Phireram vs State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr
Read Order:
Click Here to Read Previous Reports on Adultery
