Section 483 of BNSS

Source: Supreme Court  

Why in News? 

Recently, Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Sandeep Mehta expressed concern over a series of Allahabad High Court orders wrongly treating the Witness Protection Scheme as a substitute for bail cancellation, holding it to be an alternative remedy. The Court noted that at least forty such identical, cyclostyled orders had been passed in the last year, a practice continuing for over two years, and strongly deprecated this approach. 

• The Supreme Court held this in the matter of Phireram v. State Of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. (2025). 

What was the Background of Phireram v. State Of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. (2025) Case? 

• Phireram lodged FIR No. 137 of 2022 at Surajpur Police Station, District Gautam Budh Nagar, Uttar Pradesh against accused persons for offences under Sections 302 (murder), 201 (causing disappearance of evidence), 364 (kidnapping), 120-B (criminal conspiracy) read with Section 34 (common intention) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. 
• The accused were arrested and subsequently granted bail by the Allahabad High Court on 29th April 2024 with conditions including:  
  • Not tampering with evidence, not threatening witnesses or complainant, attending court proceedings, not misusing bail liberty, and not intimidating any person familiar with case facts. 
• After bail, the second respondent allegedly threatened witnesses in violation of bail conditions. Two fresh FIRs (No. 262/2024 and No. 740/2024) were lodged by witness Chahat Ram at Surajpur Police Station alleging threats by the accused. 
• Phireram filed Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Cancellation Application No. 93 of 2025 under Section 439(2) CrPC seeking cancellation of bail due to violation of bail conditions through witness intimidation. 
• The Allahabad High Court disposed of the application on 11th April 2025 by directing the complainant to seek remedy under the Witness Protection Scheme, 2018 instead of examining the bail cancellation on merits. 
• Aggrieved by this order, Phireram filed Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 9082 of 2025 before the Supreme Court challenging the High Court's approach. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Court observed that the Witness Protection Scheme, 2018 is curative in nature and not an alternative to bail cancellation provisions under Sections 437 and 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The Scheme addresses psychological complexities of witness vulnerability that bail law alone cannot address. 
• The Court distinguished that witness protection is a remedial State obligation, while bail cancellation is a preventive judicial function. The existence of the Witness Protection Scheme cannot be grounds to decline bail cancellation when there is prima facie evidence of witness intimidation. 
• The Court emphasised that bail represents conditional liberty, not untrammelled freedom. Conditions imposed under Sections 437(3) or 439(2) CrPC (483 BNSS) constitute substantive obligations. Courts retain supervisory duty to revoke bail upon condition violation. 
• Violation of bail conditions constitutes grounds for cancellation as a matter of judicial duty. Courts cannot abdicate this role on the pretext that witness protection schemes exist. 
• The Supreme Court discovered forty recent orders from the Allahabad High Court treating the Witness Protection Scheme as substitute for bail cancellation. These were verbatim cyclostyled template orders representing an erroneous practice spanning over two years. 
• The Court noted that public prosecutors for urging courts to relegate complainants to witness protection schemes instead of examining bail cancellation on merits when accused violated bail conditions through witness intimidation. 
• The Court observed that bail cancellation requires overwhelming circumstances when supervening factors impede fair trial. Specific grounds include witness intimidation, evidence tampering, investigation interference, and misuse of bail liberty. 
• The Court stressed that fair trial requires both State initiative and judicial vigilance. Courts must act as sentinels ensuring trials proceed without intimidation. To ask witnesses to seek alternative remedies while ignoring clear bail violations would be grossly unjust and contrary to established legal principles. 

What is Section 483 BNSS? 

• High Court and Court of Session possess special powers to direct release of any accused person in custody on bail, with authority to impose necessary conditions for offences specified under sub-section (3) of section 480. 
• These superior courts have discretionary power to set aside or modify any bail conditions previously imposed by a Magistrate when releasing a person on bail. 
• Before granting bail for offences triable exclusively by Session Court or punishable with life imprisonment, the High Court or Session Court must give notice to the Public Prosecutor, unless it records in writing that giving such notice is impracticable. 
• For offences under section 65 or sub-section (2) of section 70 of BNS, the court must provide notice to the Public Prosecutor within fifteen days of receiving the bail application. 
• The presence of the informant or his authorised representative is mandatory during bail hearings for offences under section 65 or sub-section (2) of section 70 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 
• High Court and Session Court retain continuing jurisdiction to direct arrest and committal to custody of any person previously released on bail under this Chapter. 
• The provision establishes a supervisory mechanism where superior courts can intervene in bail matters decided by lower courts through modification or cancellation powers. 
• The section creates specific procedural safeguards for serious offences by mandating prosecutorial notice and informant presence during bail proceedings, ensuring proper representation of State interests and victim concerns.