The Supreme Court strongly condemned the Allahabad High Court for adopting a mechanical approach in dealing with bail cancellation matters. The apex court emphasized that the Witness Protection Scheme, 2018, cannot be misused as a substitute for cancelling bail where conditions are breached.
A bench comprising Justices J.B. Pardiwala and Sandeep Mehta was hearing an appeal in a case from Uttar Pradesh, where the complainant sought the cancellation of bail granted to an accused who allegedly threatened witnesses. The Allahabad High Court had earlier dismissed the plea and instructed the complainant to pursue the matter under the Witness Protection Scheme instead.
The Supreme Court sharply criticized this approach, observing that nearly 40 bail cancellation applications had been disposed of since April 2025 using nearly identical orders. The bench termed such uniform orders as lacking proper judicial scrutiny and reducing serious applications to routine disposal.
“We have consistently encountered orders from the Allahabad High Court that wrongly treat the Witness Protection Scheme as a substitute for bail cancellation,” the court remarked.
The Supreme Court pointed out that the practice of merely redirecting complainants to the Witness Protection Scheme effectively undermines the authority of courts and renders bail cancellation provisions meaningless. The judgment clarified that the Scheme is designed to protect witnesses, not to shield accused persons from the repercussions of violating bail conditions.
The bench further underscored that bail cancellation serves a preventive and supervisory function, aimed at ensuring that the trial proceeds without intimidation, while the Witness Protection Scheme is a remedial measure to counter threats that have already materialized.
Describing the High Court’s approach as “very curious,” the Supreme Court emphasized that the public prosecutor should assist the trial court by highlighting the correct legal position rather than urging the complainant to seek alternative remedies.
Allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court remanded the case back to the High Court for a fresh hearing on its merits.
This development follows a recent instance where Justice Pardiwala reprimanded another Allahabad HC judge for adjudicating criminal proceedings in a civil matter, ordering that the judge be accompanied by a senior judge until retirement. That directive was modified on August 8 following a reconsideration request by the Chief Justice of India.
Read More: GST 2.0: Rate Rationalisation Aims to Drive Consumption and Behavioural Change
