Four Years in Custody: SC Grants Bail with Strict Conditions to Ensure Witness Safety.


27 October 2025 Bail and Antcipatory Bail >> Criminal Law  

The Supreme Court directed the release of Mohammad Hasan Allah Baksha Shaikh alias Ammu, who has been in jail since more than four years ago, and instructed his release on bail with stringent conditions to ensure that there was no interference with witnesses or complainant.

Background:

The petitioner had come to the Supreme Court from the Bombay High Court's order dated 3 January 2025 denying bail in Criminal Bail Application No. 2561 of 2023. The case was a pending criminal trial where the complainant—PW-3—was the main witness. In an earlier order of 8 September 2025, the Supreme Court had ordered the speedy recording of the testimony of the complainant, which has since been accomplished.

 

 

In the current hearing, the attorney of the petitioner apprised the Bench of Justices Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Vipul M. Pancholi that the complainant has now been cross-examined and examined, and the accused had been in custody for almost four years and four months. The State assured compliance with the Court's previous orders.

Supreme Court's Order:

Noticing the extended detention and the completion of the complainant's testimony, the Bench ordered the release of the petitioner on bail, leaving it to the trial court to set appropriate conditions. Significantly, the Court pressed that the bail order include measures in place to ensure that the petitioner:
  • shall not make any contact or influence the complainant or any witness;
  • shall not try to destroy or alter any evidence; and
  • shall assist fully with the continued trial.
The Court categorically noted that any violation or attempt to retard proceedings would be sufficient grounds for bail cancellation forthwith.

Balancing Liberty and Safety:

Following the dictation of the order, State counsel informed the Court that a co-accused (not the current petitioner) was said to have threatened the complainant during deposition, for which an NCR had been filed and a motion filed for cancellation of his bail. The Bench demurred on remarking upon that incident, declaring that the involved accused was not before it, but its cautionary directions highlighted the Court's desire to ensure both liberty and accountability.

A Wider Judicial Message:

This order reaffirms a steady judicial line: the right to obtain bail has to be balanced against the reasonable interest of providing a fair, untainted trial. The Court's practice—firm but measured—permits long pretrial detention without turning it punitive, while at the same time preserving witnesses and maintaining the integrity of the evidentiary process.

Conclusion:

The ruling in Mohammad Hasan Allah Baksha Shaikh Ammu v. State of Maharashtra demonstrates the Supreme Court's subtle balance between constitutional freedom and procedural caution. By pairing release with stringent conditions, the Court reasserted that in criminal jurisprudence, freedom is not impunity, and compassion has to be accompanied by caution always.