SC raps Allahabad HC for ‘cyclostyled’ orders denying bail cancellation

A single-judge bench of the Allahabad High Court dismissed the complainant’s plea in April this year and directed him to approach the authorities under the Witness Protection Scheme. The accused in the case had been granted bail with conditions, including not tampering with evidence or intimidating witnesses.

Rebuking the “practice” by the Allahabad HC, the Supreme Court flagged nearly 40 bail cancellation applications  disposed of since April 2025, all through nearly identical orders.

“We have come across a catena of orders from the Allahabad HC proceeding on an incorrect assumption of the law, more particularly that the Witness Protection Scheme is a substitute for cancellation of bail,” the court said.

These rulings only changed language to fit facts, but followed the same template of redirecting complainants to the Witness Protection Scheme. Such an exercise undermines judicial scrutiny and reduces serious applications to a routine disposal, said the court.

“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,” said the bench.

Remarking the approach of the High Court as “very curious”, the court said: “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.”

The judges emphasised that the Witness Protection Scheme cannot be treated as a fallback to excuse the violation of bail terms. It was created to safeguard witnesses, not to shield accused persons from the consequences of misusing their liberty, said the bench. Using it as a means to deny cancellation of bail, the court said, is “entirely erroneous”.

The SC noted 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”.

Allowing the appeal, the bench remanded the case to the High Court for a fresh hearing on merits.

Last month, an SC bench comprising Justice Pardiwala had reprimanded another judge of the Allahabad HC for adjudicating criminal proceedings in a civil matter. Justice Pardiwala had ordered that the HC judge be accompanied with a senior judge on the bench until he demits office, and that no criminal case be placed before him. That order was modified on August 8 after the CJI requested the bench to reconsider those directions.