Supreme Court on Bail Modification and Cancellation: Liberty vs. Witness Safety.

Headnote

The Supreme Court rejected applications to modify or cancel bail granted to accused SK. Md. Anisur Rahaman and Afjal Ali Sha in a murder trial. The Court emphasized that bail is a constitutional right under Article 21, but it must be balanced with witness safety and the integrity of the trial. The Court held that in absence of concrete evidence of threat to witnesses or tampering, the existing bail conditions could not be disturbed.

Background

1. The appellants face trial for murder (Panskura P.S. Case No.496/2019) under Sections 302/120B IPC and 25/27 Arms Act.
2. Anisur Rahaman was arrested on 16 November 2019; the trial commenced in the 3rd Court of Addl. Sessions Judge, Tamluk, later transferred to City Sessions Court, Calcutta.
3. Bail was granted by the Supreme Court on 3 January 2025, restricted to Kolkata due to security concerns and political influence of the accused.
4. The State filed applications to cancel/modification of bail alleging threats to witnesses and obstruction of justice. The accused sought relaxation of the Kolkata restriction, citing personal hardship and liberty rights.

Court’s Observations

1. Bail is a right but not absolute; conditions can be imposed to protect witnesses and ensure fair trial.
2. No credible evidence indicated witness tampering or threats.
3. Restriction to Kolkata was reasonable considering potential influence and risk of absconding.
4. Judicial monitoring of remaining prosecution witnesses was ordered to maintain trial integrity.

Legal Provisions Discussed

1. Section 302, Indian Penal Code – Punishment for murder
2. Section 120B, IPC – Criminal conspiracy
3. Sections 25 & 27, Arms Act – Possession of illegal arms
4. Article 21, Constitution of India – Protection of life and personal liberty
5. Supreme Court’s inherent powers under Criminal Procedure for bail modification and cancellation

Judgment

1. Application for cancellation of bail (IA 244053/2025): Rejected
2. Application for modification of bail condition (IA 197604/2025): Rejected
3. Application for condonation of delay (IA 227763/2025): Allowed
4. Sessions Court directed to record remaining prosecution witnesses consecutively or alternately.

Case: SK. Md. Anisur Rahaman vs. The State of West Bengal & Anr.; Afjal Ali Sha @ Abjal Shaukat Sha vs. The State of West Bengal & Anr.

Court: Supreme Court of India

Coram: Justice Dipankar Datta

Date of Decision: 25 November 2025

Case No./Diary No.: Misc. Application Diary No.44979/2025 with IAs 197604/2025 & 227763/2025 in Criminal Appeal No.43/2025; Misc. Application Diary No.55130/2025 with IA 244053/2025 in Criminal Appeal No.43/2025