Delhi High Court
Bilal Mir vs National Investigation Agency on 29 July, 2026
Author: Neena Bansal Krishna
Bench: Neena Bansal Krishna
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Reserved on: 11th March, 2026
Pronounced on: 29th July, 2026
+ CRL.M.C. 5129/2025, CRL.M.A. 22186/2025
BILAL MIR
S/o Ghulam Mohammad Mir
R/o Gulbagh Colony,
Parimpora,
Srinagar District,
Jammu & Kashmir
.....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Adit S. Pujari, Adv., Mr. Kartik
Venu, Adv., Mr. R Jude Rohit, Mr.
Arjan Ajai Singh Chonker, Mr.
Bhavesh Seth, Mr. Harshwardhan
Pushkin Sharma, Advocates.
versus
NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY
(Though Its Director)
P.S. NIA, New Delhi.
.....Respondent
Through: Mr. Gautam Narayan (SPP), Ms.
Asmita Singh, Mr. Shashank Jain, Mr.
Geet Dehariya, Advocates.
+ CRL.M.C. 5130/2025, CRL.M.A. 22190/2025
BILAL MIR
S/o Ghulam Mohammad Mir
R/o Gulbagh Colony,
Parimpora,
Srinagar District,
Jammu & Kashmir.
.....Petitioner
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VIKAS CRL.M.C. 5129/2025 & CRL.M.C. 5130/2025 Page 1 of 37
ARORA
Signing Date:03.08.2026
14:41:58
Through: Mr. Adit S. Pujari, Adv., Mr. Kartik
Venu, Adv., Mr. R Jude Rohit, Mr.
Arjan Ajai Singh Chonker, Mr.
Bhavesh Seth, Mr. Harshwardhan
Pushkin Sharma, Advocates.
versus
NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY
(Though Its Director)
P.S. NIA, New Delhi.
.....Respondent
Through: Mr. Gautam Narayan (SPP), Ms.
Asmita Singh, Mr. Shashank Jain, Mr.
Geet Dehariya, Advocates.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA
J U D G M E N T
NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J.
1. The aforesaid two Petitions have been decided together.
CRL.M.C. 5129/2025:
2. Petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha
Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as “BNSS”) read with Article 227 of
Constitution of India, 1950 has been filed by the Petitioner Bilal Mir to
challenge the Orders dated 08.04.2022 and 20.03.2023, wherein, the
Application filed by the National Investigating Agency (hereinafter referred
to as “NIA”) under Section 44 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act,
1967 (hereinafter referred to as “UAPA”) read with Section 17 of the
National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as “NIA
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VIKAS CRL.M.C. 5129/2025 & CRL.M.C. 5130/2025 Page 2 of 37
ARORA
Signing Date:03.08.2026
14:41:58
Act”) for Protection of Witnesses, has been allowed by the learned Special
Judge.
3. The brief facts are that the Petitioner was running a successful timber
business under the name of Faisal Timbers and was also engaged in the
profession of property dealing.
4. On 10.10.2021 RC-29/2021/NIA/DLI dated 10.10.2021 was
registered by the NIA under Section 120B, 121A, 122 and 123 of the Indian
Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as “IPC“) & Sections
18/18A/18B/20/38/39 of the UAPA. As per the aforesaid RC, information
was received that cadres of proscribed terrorist organizations including,
Laskhar-e-Taiba (LeT), Hizb-ul-Mujahideen (HM), Al Badr and similar
other outfits as well as their affiliates namely, The Resistance Front (TRF),
People Against Fascist Forces (PAFF), Mujahideen Gazwatul Hind (MGH)
were all active in Jammu & Kashmir, and are being orchestrated from
Pakistan.
5. They in cohorts with their Pakistan based handlers and commanders
along with the network of Over Ground Workers (OGWs), were indulging in
radicalization of impressionable local youth for the purpose of recruiting and
training them in handling of arms, ammunition and explosives. It was
alleged that they had conspired to commit terrorist acts, recruited local youth
to become members of terrorist organizations and procured arms/
ammunition for terrorist purposes and that the members of the aforesaid
proscribed terrorist organization had conspired to wage war against the
Indian Government. The Petitioner asserted that he was not named as an
accused, in the aforesaid RC.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VIKAS CRL.M.C. 5129/2025 & CRL.M.C. 5130/2025 Page 3 of 37
ARORA
Signing Date:03.08.2026
14:41:58
6. Subsequently, the Petitioner was arrested on 12.10.2021 and has been
in Judicial Custody, since then. Subsequently, upon completion of
investigation, Chargesheet dated 08.04.2022 was filed by NIA under the
aforesaid Sections. Out of total 26 accused who were charge-sheeted, the
Petitioner was specifically accused of committing offences under Sections
120B and 121 A of the IPC read with Sections 18, 20, 38 & 39 of the
UAPA.
7. On the same day, NIA filed an Application under Section 44 UAPA
read with Section 17 of the NIA Act, seeking declaration of certain
witnesses as protected witnesses. Vide Order dated 08.04.2022, the learned
Special Judge allowed the Application filed by NIA and declared 16
witnesses as Protected Witnesses. In the aforesaid Order it was observed that
there was no necessity to supply the copy of the Application to the defence
counsel. The Order merely recorded that “Having heard the learned Senior
PP for the NIA and learned Defence Counsel, the Application is allowed and
the Statements of the Protected Witnesses be supplied to them concealing
their identities.”
8. It is asserted that firstly, the Petitioner was not represented by any
legal counsel, at that stage. Secondly, the copy of the aforesaid Application
had not been supplied to him as he was produced through Video
Conferencing, as in the opinion of the learned Special Judge there was no
legal necessity to do so; thus impairing a fair opportunity of hearing.
Thirdly, no reasons were recorded in the Order regarding the existence of
any identifiable threat perception qua these witnesses sought to be protected
from the Accused persons.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VIKAS CRL.M.C. 5129/2025 & CRL.M.C. 5130/2025 Page 4 of 37
ARORA
Signing Date:03.08.2026
14:41:58
9. Cognizance of the offences was taken on 27.04.2022 by learned
Special Judge. Thereafter, First Supplementary Charge-sheet dated
20.03.2023 was filed by NIA. On the same day, another Application was
filed by NIA seeking declaration of 8 additional witnesses as protected
witnesses. The learned Special Judge vide Order dated 20.03.2023 allowed
the subsequent Application filed by Nia and granted the status of Protected
Witnesses to the aforesaid 8 witnesses.
10. Here also, firstly, the Application was heard ex-parte and no
opportunity was given to the Accused. Secondly, no reasons have been
recorded regarding the threat perception to these witnesses.
11. The charges under Section 120B, 121A of the IPC as well as
Section 18 & 18B of the UAPA were directed to be framed against the
Petitioner vide Order dated 30.07.2024. In view thereof, charges were
accordingly framed against the Petitioner on 20.08.2024.
12. Thereafter, two separate Applications were moved by Accused No.
22 and Accused No. 24 on 15.10.2024 with the prayer that the un-redacted
copy of the statement of Protected Witness X-1 be provided to the co-
accused persons. Their Applications, however, were dismissed in limine
on the same day, vide Order dated 15.10.2024.
13. Subsequently, a second Application was moved by Accused No.24
seeking unredacted copy of the statement recorded of Protected Witness X-
1. This Application was also dismissed in limine vide Order dated
16.10.2024. It was submitted that between 13.01.2025 till 30.04.2025,
testimony of other Protected Witnesses were recorded.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VIKAS CRL.M.C. 5129/2025 & CRL.M.C. 5130/2025 Page 5 of 37
ARORA
Signing Date:03.08.2026
14:41:58
14. It was claimed by the Petitioner that on 05.07.2025, it was confirmed
by the Court staff that the Protected Witnesses X-5 and X-11 have been
served and are scheduled to appear before the learned Special Judge, on
12.07.2025.
15. Thereafter, the Petitioner on 07.07.2025 moved an Application
praying for directions to furnish the complete unredacted and de-
anonymized copy of the statements under Section 164 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “CrPC“) dated
23.03.2022 of Protected Witness X-5 and un-redacted statements under
Section 164 Cr.P.C dated 05.04.2022 of the Protected Witness X-11 be
provided, to give reasonable opportunity to counsel for Petitioner to prepare
for the case in consultation with the Petitioner.
16. The Notice of the aforesaid Application filed by the Petitioner, was
issued vide Order dated 07.07.2025. The Petitioner requested to list the
Application before 12.07.2025, otherwise the same would become
infructuous, however, the learned Special Judge declined the request of the
Petitioner. This led to filing of Crl.M.C. No.4467/2025 before this Court.
The aforesaid Petition was disposed of vide Order dated 10.07.2025 with the
directions that since identical Applications have been filed before the
learned Special Judge, which is listed for 12.07.2025, the Application of the
Petitioner be considered on the same date by the learned Special Judge.
17. However, the Application of the Petitioner was dismissed by the
learned Special Judge vide Order dated 24.07.2025.
18. The Orders dated 08.04.2022 and 20.03.2023 have been challenged
on the grounds that firstly, at the time of aforesaid Orders, the Petitioner was
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VIKAS CRL.M.C. 5129/2025 & CRL.M.C. 5130/2025 Page 6 of 37
ARORA
Signing Date:03.08.2026
14:41:58
not represented by any counsel. Secondly, the copy of the Application
seeking declaration of witnesses as Protected Witnesses was not supplied to
the Petitioner. Thirdly, the Order was non-speaking and did not contain any
reasons for allowing the Application. Fourthly, the Order did not meet the
requirements of law, as there was no recording of the satisfaction of the
Court about the existence of any identifiable threat perception.
19. It was asserted that for implementation of any measure under Section
44 of the UAPA read with Section 17 of the NIA Act, existence of an
identifiable threat perception to each witness are required to be established
by NIA. No such facts are manifest in the Application filed by NIA.
20. Moreover, both the aforesaid Orders were vague, omnibus and non-
speaking. Reliance was placed on Mohd. Asarudeen vs. Union of India, 2025
INSC 746. Therefore, the protection granted to the said witnesses, has not
been made in accordance with law and the two Orders are not sustainable in
law.
21. It was further submitted that the present case involves grave
allegations and serious offences under UAPA, pertaining to the offences
against the State. It is settled principal that graver the offence, stricter is the
proof. In case of special enactment like UAPA, there are many relaxations
provided to ordinary procedural safeguards and additional restrictions
against an Accused, but the importance of the right to a free and fair trial,
cannot be overstated.
22. By not providing disclosure of full particulars of a witness, impairs
the ability of an Accused to cross-examine the witness effectively to the
fullest extent and capacity. This measure and that too, in a trial involving
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VIKAS CRL.M.C. 5129/2025 & CRL.M.C. 5130/2025 Page 7 of 37
ARORA
Signing Date:03.08.2026
14:41:58
serious offences carrying grave allegations under UAPA, is doubly
prejudicial and could result in miscarriage of justice.
23. The right to impeach the credibility of a witness necessarily requires
knowing their identity/antecedents. Exposing the previous conduct and
character of the witnesses, is an important aspect of cross-examination,
which is statutorily recognized under Section 155 of the Indian Evidence
Act, 1872. In such circumstances, an accused would be unable to effectively
rebut the factual allegations made by a witness, unless and until the identity
of a particular witness is disclosed. This is particularly so in the context of
correspondence, meetings and communications; be it through in-person
meetings, phone conversation, Whatsapp groups, involving multiple persons
and/or in the conduct of common course of business.
24. Had the learned Special Judge allowed the supply of un-redacted
statement at a reasonable time prior to examination of the witness, the
interest of the Accused could sufficiently be protected by providing some
time to prepare for cross-examination.
25. It was claimed that there was no delay or laches on the part of the
Petitioner, in terms of the law laid down in Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab,
(1994) 3 SCC 569 and People‟s Union for Civil Liberties & Anr. v. Union of
India, (2004) 9 SCC 580.
26. The Petitioner further stated that the Application filed by the
Petitioner to challenge the Orders dated 08.04.2022 and 20.03.2023, had
been dismissed vide Order dated–by Ld. Special Judge, by observing that
these two Orders had not been earlier challenged and thus, had attained
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VIKAS CRL.M.C. 5129/2025 & CRL.M.C. 5130/2025 Page 8 of 37
ARORA
Signing Date:03.08.2026
14:41:58
finality. The aforesaid Orders could not be reviewed/revised in view of the
bar of Section 362 of the CrPC.
27. The Petitioner has been left with no alternative but to challenge the
two Orders dated 08.04.2022 & 20.03.2023, by way of present Petition in
order to avoid any objection to the Petition, given the paucity of time.
28. It was further submitted that the Order dated 15.05.2024 passed by the
Supreme Court in the bail plea of the co-accused, has no bearing to the issue
of delay and laches as the conduct of co-accused cannot estop the Petitioner.
29. The Supreme Court vide Order dated 15.05.2024 in SLP (Crl.)
No.83/2024 titled „Suhail Ahmad Thokar vs. NIA‟ had directed that the
Special Court shall ensure that the Protected Witnesses, are examined first.
However, the Petitioner was not a party in the aforesaid SLP. The
Petitioner’s main concern relates to his own defence and in cross-
examination of those Protected Witnesses that make allegations against him.
The actions or proceedings of co-accused, cannot be imputed to the
Petitioner, nor can they be held against him.
30. The principle of estoppel has no application, in the given
circumstances. Moreover, the Supreme Court itself intended its directions to
be mandatory and time bound for the completion of the proceedings under
Section 207 of the CrPC, while setting the timeline for pronouncement of
Order on Charge.
31. There was, however, no timeline for completion of prosecution
evidence or of Protected Witnesses. Moreover, the Supreme Court in its
latest Order dated 16.07.2025 had itself enquired as to whether PW-271 and
PW-272, both of whom were not protected witnesses and related to the
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VIKAS CRL.M.C. 5129/2025 & CRL.M.C. 5130/2025 Page 9 of 37
ARORA
Signing Date:03.08.2026
14:41:58
Petitioner therein be examined, which is a marked departure from the earlier
Order dated 15.05.2024. It is further stated that from the aforesaid Orders of
the Supreme Court, it is evident that it is not seized of the issue concerning
the validity or correctness of the Protected Witness Orders, which are under
challenge by way of the present Petition.
32. It was further submitted that there are over 359 witnesses cited in the
case, out of which 23 have been designated as protected witnesses. The trial
has not been classified as time bound or expedited matter either by this
Court or by the Supreme Court. Moreover, the learned Special Judge has
not adhered to any particular sequence or chronology in summoning the
Protected Witness. In the absence of any clarity regarding the sequence or
timing of witness examination, the Petitioner could not have approached this
Court at an earlier stage.
33. It was, therefore, submitted that the impugned Orders dated
08.04.2022 and 20.03.2023 granting protected status to the witnesses stated
therein may be set aside.
CRL.M.C. 5130/2025:
34. Petition under Section 528 of the BNSS read with Article 227 of
Constitution of India, 1950 has been filed by the Petitioner challenging the
Order dated 24.07.2025, wherein the Application of the Petitioner to
provide the complete un-redacted and de-anonymized copies of the
Statements of Protected Witnesses X-5 and X-11 recorded under
Section 164 of the CrPC, has been dismissed.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VIKAS CRL.M.C. 5129/2025 & CRL.M.C. 5130/2025 Page 10 of 37
ARORA
Signing Date:03.08.2026
14:41:58
35. The Petitioner submitted that the short issue in the present Petition is:
whether the learned Special Judge in the trial proceedings has justifiably
exercised its jurisdiction in consonance with the right of the Accused to a
free and fair trial, in refusing to disclose the full identity particulars of the
Protected Witnesses, before cross-examination by the Petitioner.
36. Despite judicial safe-guards under UAPA permitting concealment of
identity for witness protection, such powers are narrowly circumscribed.
Under Section 44(2) of the UAPA, secrecy may be granted only where there
is a clear, identifiable threat, and thus, must be supported by material
evidence and judicial reasoning. The Supreme Court in the case of Mohd.
Asarudeen v. Union of India(supra) has reiterated that Section 44 of the
UAPA is not an unregulated tool, and blanket or omnibus orders cannot be
passed by the learned Special Judge.
37. Even in Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab(supra) and People‟s Union
for Civil Liberties & Anr. v. Union of India(supra) the Supreme Court had
held that the exceptions to the right of cross-examination, must be based on
compelling and recorded reasons, balancing security concerns with due
process and natural justice. Courts must assess each case individually and
adopt minimal, calibrated restrictions.
38. It was submitted that the present case involves serious charges under
the UAPA and the IPC, carrying potential sentence of life imprisonment or
death. Given the extraordinary nature of the UAPA, denial of full particulars
of witnesses prior to cross-examination materially impairs the Petitioner’s
ability to mount an effective defence. The right to impeach the credibility of
a witness necessarily requires knowledge of their identity and antecedents, a
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VIKAS CRL.M.C. 5129/2025 & CRL.M.C. 5130/2025 Page 11 of 37
ARORA
Signing Date:03.08.2026
14:41:58
principle codified under Section 155 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
Without such information, especially in cases involving complex
communications, meetings, or group conduct, the accused is effectively
denied the opportunity to rebut key allegations.
39. It was further submitted that even otherwise, the Orders dated
08.04.2022 and 20.03.2023 granting blanket protection without disclosing
any reasons for granting protection, was against the mandate of Mohd.
Asarudeen v. Union of India(supra). The Application filed by the Petitioner
for provided un-redacted statements with identity, has been erroneously
rejected by observing by the learned Special Judge that the earlier two
Orders dated 08.04.2022 and 20.03.2023 granting the protection had not
been challenged and have attained finality and that there can be no review
under Section 362 of the CrPC.
40. It was submitted that, without prejudice to the challenge to the
previous Orders dated 08.04.2022 and 20.03.2023, those Orders do not
preclude disclosure of witness statements at a later stage, especially to
safeguard the right of an accused to a fair trial. This has been affirmed in the
case of Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab(supra).
41. The approach and interpretation of law on this aspect, had been
demonstrated earlier by dismissing similar Applications filed by the co-
accused vide Orders dated 15.10.2024 and 16.10.2024. The reasoning
employed in the impugned Order dated 24.07.2025, is patently perverse. The
impugned Order unfairly attributes the conduct and circumstances of the co-
accused, against the Petitioner. Moreover, it is unconceivable how the
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VIKAS CRL.M.C. 5129/2025 & CRL.M.C. 5130/2025 Page 12 of 37
ARORA
Signing Date:03.08.2026
14:41:58
Petitioner could have challenged the Orders made in respect of the other co-
accused persons.
42. The NIA had submitted its Written Submissions in both the
aforesaid Petitions, wherein, it was submitted that there is no constitutional
or statutory requirement to disclose the complete identity of a Protected
Witnesses prior to cross-examination, in order to protect the life and safety
of the witnesses and to enable them to depose freely.
43. On the contrary, such non-disclosure has been permitted under
various statues and has been upheld by Supreme Court in the case of
Gurbachan Singh vs. State of Bombay & Anr. (1952) 1 SCC 683, wherein it
upheld the proceedings under Section 27 of Bombay Police Act, 1902 which
permitted externment of a person, on the basis of evidence which had not
been supplied to the accused persons. It was held that the provision was
meant to secure the life and safety of persons who may otherwise not be able
to depose against anti-social elements living in the area and disclosure of the
identity of such persons, would defeat the purpose of legislative scheme.
44. Similarly, in Kartar Singh vs. State of Punjab(supra), the
constitutional validity of Sections 16(2) and (3) of the Terrorist and
Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as
“TADA”), which were identical to Section 44(2) and (3) of the UAPA, had
been upheld by the Supreme Court.
45. Likewise, in People‟s Union for Civil Liberties & Anr. Vs. Union of
India(supra), the Supreme Court had upheld the constitutional validity of
Section 30 of the Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VIKAS CRL.M.C. 5129/2025 & CRL.M.C. 5130/2025 Page 13 of 37
ARORA
Signing Date:03.08.2026
14:41:58
as “POTA”) and had refused to lay down the procedure to be adopted by the
Special Court, to keep the identity of the witness secret.
46. It was submitted that the long-held concern of the Supreme Court,
regarding witness protection, has been repeatedly emphasized particularly in
cases of organized crime such as terrorism, so as to assist the justice system
without any fear.
47. Reliance is also placed on Zahira Habibulla H Sheikh & Anr. v State
of Gujarat & Ors., (2004) 4 SCC 158; Ramesh & Ors. v State of Haryana,
(2017) 1 SCC 529; Mahender Chawla & Ors. v Union of India & Ors.,
(2019) 14 SCC 615; Phireram v State of Uttar Pradesh, 2025 SCC OnLine
SC 1915; Tehseen S Poonawalla v Union of India & Ors.
48. Section 44 of the UAPA read with Section 17 of the NIA Act, are in
furtherance of the aforesaid objective and constitute a statutory scheme of
witness protection. The Orders dated 08.04.2022 and 20.03.2023, confirm
these requirements laid down by the Supreme Court, when it passed the
Order of protection of 23 witnesses as Protected Witnesses in the present
case. Non-disclosure of the identity of such witnesses, is based on an
objective threat perception qua such witnesses.
49. The Supreme Court in Md. Asarudeen vs. Union of India &
Anr(supra) had held that the Order of the Special Court was not sustainable
on two grounds; viz. (i) The impugned orders of the Special Court did not
disclose the satisfaction that there was a threat to the witnesses by the
Special Court and (ii) It failed to apply its mind to the measures required to
be taken for protection of each witness. It was submitted that, the aforesaid
Judgment was distinguishable, on the facts of the present case.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VIKAS CRL.M.C. 5129/2025 & CRL.M.C. 5130/2025 Page 14 of 37
ARORA
Signing Date:03.08.2026
14:41:58
50. Furthermore, the Petitioner has been engaged in extortion for and at
the behest of handlers for the terrorist organization, providing shelter to
terrorists; facilitating movement of weaponry and motivating youth to join
the armed struggle.
51. It was, therefore, submitted that the Impugned Orders of the learned
Special Judge do not merit any interference and the present Petition
deserves to be dismissed.
Submissions heard and record perused.
52. The aforesaid two Petitions raise a question of seminal importance of
the grant of a status of Protected Witness to certain witnesses during the
trial, while balancing the right of the accused to a fair trial in claiming un-
redacted copies of the statements of such protected witnesses.
53. The brief background is that NIA filed the Charge-Sheet filed on
08.04.2022, in the RC-29/2021/NIA/DLI dated 10.10.2021 under Sections
18, 18A, 18B, 20, 38 and 39 of the UAPA read with Sections 120B, 121A,
122 and 123 of the IPC. The Petitioner, Bilal Mir was named as Accused
No. 3, in the Charge-Sheet.
54. On the same day, the Application was filed by NIA under Sections
44(2)/44(3)(b) and 44(c) of the UAPA read with Sections 17(2)/17(3)(b) and
17(c) of the NIA Act, seeking declaration of 15 witnesses as Protected
Witnesses and that their identity may be concealed, was allowed by the
learned Special Judge vide Order dated 08.04.2022. Both the prosecution
witnesses X-5 and X-11, whose un-redacted statements are being sought
by the Petitioner, were directed to be protected vide this Order.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VIKAS CRL.M.C. 5129/2025 & CRL.M.C. 5130/2025 Page 15 of 37
ARORA
Signing Date:03.08.2026
14:41:58
55. Thereafter, a similar Order dated 20.03.2023 was passed by the
learned Special Judge in respect of 8 additional witnesses, who were also
declared the protected witnesses. NIA was directed to supply the statements
of these witnesses, after redacting the details of their identity as per Section
207 of the CrPC.
56. The Petitioner, thereafter, at the stage of the recording of the evidence
of the aforesaid Protected Witnesses X-5 and X-11, moved an Application
seeking the un-redacted statements of these witnesses, for the purpose of
cross-examination, which was dismissed vide Order dated 24.07.2025.
The learned Special Judge observed that the Application was in fact, review
of the First Order dated 08.04.2022 by virtue of which, these two witnesses
were declared as Protected Witnesses and there was no power with the
Special Judge, to review its own Orders.
57. The aforesaid Petitions raise two questions, which are as under: –
(i) What is the procedure for declaring a person as a
protected person;
(ii) Whether for the purpose of fair trial, the accused is
entitled to disclosure of the identity and his address to
facilitate proper cross-examination of such protected
witnesses.
I. CRL.M.C. 5129/2025: Whether the Declaration of witnesses as
protected witness, was according to the procedure as envisaged
by Law:
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VIKAS CRL.M.C. 5129/2025 & CRL.M.C. 5130/2025 Page 16 of 37
ARORA
Signing Date:03.08.2026
14:41:58
58. The rule of law and the mandate of a fair trial to an Accused is
fundamental, but cannot be treated as absolute.
59. Law Commission of India in its 198th Report on Witness Identity
Protection given in August, 2006 observed that at the trial, when the trial
commences and the Witnesses are to be examined, there may be following
three situations:
(i) there may be cases in which the victims/witnesses
identity is known to the Accused and vice versa;
(ii) the victim is not known to the Accused in which cases
the victim/witness seek anonymity and need identity protection; or
(iii) the witness is not known to the Accused in which cases the
witness seek anonymity and need identity protection.
60. While in cases where victim is known to the Accused as in the cases
of sexual offences, facing the Accused at the time of testimony may result in
immense trauma to the victim/witness wherein the screening vulnerable
recording of evidence in Vulnerable Witness Room, where there is no direct
interface between the victim and the Accused or the screening of the
accused or the camera proceedings, may be sufficient steps for protection of
the trauma to the witness.
61. However, where the witness and the victim are not known to the
Accused and there is danger to their life, such protective steps may not be
effective and it may become necessary to grant them anonymity in regard
to their identity.
62. Section 44 of UAPA and Section 17 of NIA Act, 2008 which are
para-materia, contain a special provision for Protection of Witness.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VIKAS CRL.M.C. 5129/2025 & CRL.M.C. 5130/2025 Page 17 of 37
ARORA
Signing Date:03.08.2026
14:41:58
63. Section 44 of the UAPA deals with protection of witnesses. It reads as
under: –
“44. Protection of witnesses: –
(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code,
the proceedings under this Act may, for reasons to be
recorded in writing, be held in camera if the court so
desires.
(2) A court, if on an application made by a witness in
any proceeding before it or by the public prosecutor in
relation to such witness or on its own motion, is satisfied
that the life of such witness is in danger, if may, for reasons
to be recorded in writing, take such measures as it deems fit
for keeping the identity and address of such witness secret.
(3) In particular, and without prejudice to the
generality of the provisions of sub-section (2), the measures
which a court may take under that sub-section may include:
(a) the holding of the proceedings at a place to be
decided by the court;
(b) the avoiding of the mention of the name and
address of the witness in its orders or judgments or in any
records of the case accessible to public;
(c) the issuing of any directions for securing that the
identity and address of the witness are not disclosed;
(d) a decision that it is in the public interest to order
that all or any of the proceedings pending before such a
court shall not be published in any manner.
(4) Any person who contravenes any decision or
direction issued under sub-section (3), shall be punishable
with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three
years, and shall also be liable to fine.”
64. Likewise, Section 17 of NIA Act, which also provides for protection
of witnesses, is para materia to Section 44 UAPA.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VIKAS CRL.M.C. 5129/2025 & CRL.M.C. 5130/2025 Page 18 of 37
ARORA
Signing Date:03.08.2026
14:41:58
65. These Sections recognizes that in such like cases to which the Act is
applicable, the necessity may require special Protection of the Witnesses. It
envisages firstly, that the Special Court in writing may direct the holding of
the proceedings in camera; secondly, on an Application filed by a witness or
the Prosecutor or on its own motion, if the Court is satisfied that the life of
such witness is in danger, it may for reasons to record in writing, take such
measures as it deems fit for keeping the identity and the address of such
witness secret.
66. In such cases, the Court must make an independent assessment and
consider the aforesaid parameters while granting anonymity to a witness or a
victim. The procedure of fair trial necessitates not only a speaking Order
giving reasons must be passed by the Special Court, but an opportunity may
also be given separately to the Accused to address his concerns, while the
anonymity is granted to any witness. Such grant of protection of anonymity
must not be prompted merely on an Application filed by the Prosecution, but
it requires application of mind by the Special Court, who must give the
reasons in writing.
67. The measures that may be taken, are stipulated in Clause 3 of S.44
UAP Act, are:
i. the proceedings may be held at a place to be decided by the
Special Court;
ii. avoid mentioning of names and addresses of the witnesses in the
Orders, Judgment or any other records; andSignature Not Verified
Signed By:VIKAS CRL.M.C. 5129/2025 & CRL.M.C. 5130/2025 Page 19 of 37
ARORA
Signing Date:03.08.2026
14:41:58
iii. directions be issued for securing the identity and the address of the
witnesses to be not disclosed and that the proceedings of the Court
shall not be published in any manner.
68. Therefore, these two Sections itself envisage non-disclosure of the
identity of such witnesses, to whom there is danger to life.
69. The Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in A.K. Roy v. Union of
India, (1982) 1 SCC 271 held as follows:
Under Section 16(2) of the 1987 Act, the Designated
Court is given only a discretionary authority to keep the
identity and address of any witness secret on the
following three contingencies:
(1) On an application made by a witness in any
proceedings before it;
Or
(2) on an application made by the Public
Prosecutor in relation to such witness; or
(3) on its own motion.
Sub-section (3) classifies only the measures to be
taken by the Designated Court while exercising its
discretion under sub-section (2). If neither the witness
nor the Public Prosecutor has made an application in
that behalf nor the court has taken any decision of its
own then the identity and addresses of the witnesses
have to be furnished to the accused. The measures are
to be taken by the Designated Court under any one of
the above contingencies so that a witness or witnesses
may not be subjected to any harassment for having
spoken against the accused.”
70. Law Commission in its 198th Report on Witness Identity Protection
and Witness Protection Programmes, defined the factors for considering
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VIKAS CRL.M.C. 5129/2025 & CRL.M.C. 5130/2025 Page 20 of 37
ARORA
Signing Date:03.08.2026
14:41:58
whether a witness should be provided police protection. It was stated that the
competent authority shall take into account the following factors:
1. The nature of risk to the security of the witness, which may
emanate from the accused and his associates;
2. The nature of the investigation in the criminal case;
3. The importance of the witness in the matter and value of the
information or evidence given or agreed to be given by the
witness and
4. The cost of providing police protection to the witness.
71. The aforesaid are the circumstances and factors that may be weighed,
while declaring the witness as a protected witness.
72. Once Charge Sheet is filed in the Court, the question which arises is
the manner and the procedure, to be adopted by the learned Special Court,
for declaring a witness as the protected witness.
73. This aspect was considered in detail by the Apex Court in the case of
Mohammed Asarudeen vs. Union of India & Ors., (2025) INSC 746,
wherein a similar omnibus Order on an Application of the Special Public
Prosecutor, for the grant of protection of witnesses under Section 44(2) of
the UAPA, to number of witnesses, was considered.
74. The Apex Court observed that Section 44(2) of the UAPA and
Section 17 of the NIA Act, has to be strictly complied, as such power may
affect the right of the accused to defend himself. It was also observed that
whenever any Application is filed seeking protection of the prosecution
witnesses, specific averments in relation to every witness, must be made in
the Application. A blanket Order in respect that the identity of all the
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VIKAS CRL.M.C. 5129/2025 & CRL.M.C. 5130/2025 Page 21 of 37
ARORA
Signing Date:03.08.2026
14:41:58
witnesses shall be hidden, is not due satisfaction as prescribed under
Section 44(2) of the UAPA and 17(2) of the NIA Act. It must also decide
what measures should be taken to protect the witness as regards to his
identity, address, name, etc. and record brief reasons for taking such
measures.
75. Therefore, in every case, where satisfaction under Section 44(2) is
recorded, the Court cannot pass a blanket Order. The learned Special Court
must be conscious that Section 44(2) of the UAPA, is an exception to the
normal rule. Therefore, the satisfaction as required under Section 44(2),
has to be recorded qua an individual witness.
76. Thus, in Mohammed Asarudeen (supra), the procedure of making
such omnibus Order made in respect of multiple witnesses and declaring
them as Protected Witnesses under 44(2) of the UAPA read with Section
17(2) of the NIA Act, was deprecated. It was held that such Order was
without application of mind and was set-aside.
77. From the aforesaid Judgment, it emerges the Special Judge is required
to independently apply his mind to each witness and record some finding of
the reasons for which each witness is declared as a Protected Witness. The
threshold for granting the status of Protected Witness is that there must be
existence of danger to the life or the property of such witnesses.
78. While it may not be possible to always give a finding of there being
an imminent danger present, but it has to be assessed on the probability of
the danger that a witness may face, if the anonymity is not granted.
79. The Petitioner, by way of CRL.M.C. 5129/2025, has challenged the
Orders dated 08.04.2022 and 20.03.2023 declaring the witnesses as
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VIKAS CRL.M.C. 5129/2025 & CRL.M.C. 5130/2025 Page 22 of 37
ARORA
Signing Date:03.08.2026
14:41:58
protected. In view of the law as propounded in Mohammed Asarudeen
(supra), it is quite evident that these impugned Orders of declaring the
number of witnesses as protected, without considering individual witnesses,
and without considering the measures that were warranted for protection of
the Witnesses and also giving cogent reasons at the commencement of trial,
may be not in consonance with the procedure detailed by the Apex Court.
80. However, it is significant to observe that the learned Special Judge
noted that the aforesaid Orders, were never challenged. So much so, the trial
is being monitored by the Supreme Court and the prosecution have from
time to time, summoned the specific Protected Witnesses for recording their
evidence, before the learned Special Judge. At no point of time, did the
Petitioner raise any grievance in regard to declaring X-5 and X-11 as
Protected Witness, whether before the learned Special Court or before this
Court or the Apex Court.
81. The record reveals that the challenge to the Orders dated 08.04.2022
and 20.03.2023, has been made in the light of observations of the learned
Special Judge in the subsequent Order dated 24.07.2025, whereby while
dismissing the Application filed by the Petitioner to supply him with the un-
redacted copies of the statement of these protected witnesses, observed that
such a request would in fact, tantamount to review of the earlier Orders
dated 08.04.2022 and 20.03.2023, which was beyond the jurisdiction of the
Court.
82. These remarks may have prompted the Petitioner, to question the
procedure of declaring X-5 and X-11 as Protected Witnesses, vide Orders
dated 08.04.2022 and 20.03.2023, but the fact remains that there is no
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VIKAS CRL.M.C. 5129/2025 & CRL.M.C. 5130/2025 Page 23 of 37
ARORA
Signing Date:03.08.2026
14:41:58
genuine concern raised about the status of Protected Witnesses being given
to these two witnesses. The Petitioner is essentially not aggrieved by such
protected status awarded to X-5 and X-11.
83. While the learned Special Judge is required to consider each witness
independently, whether such witness needs to be declared as a Protected
Witness, but it cannot be overlooked that though the learned Special Judge
may not have considered each case individually, but on consideration of the
entire Charge Sheet and the statement of the witnesses, the Court found
sufficient material disclosed for declaring these witnesses as Protected
Witnesses. Moreover, the Petitioner never made any grievance about it at
any stage.
84. Therefore, once the Petitioner himself had not questioned the status
of these witnesses, there cannot be a challenge to the Orders dated
08.04.2022 and 20.03.2023, at a highly belated stage of recording of
prosecution evidence, by way of the present Petition filed on 28.07.2025.
85. The circumstances in the present case, do not justify any interference
with the Orders dated 08.04.2022 and 20.03.2023. In view of aforesaid
discussion, CRL.M.C. 5129/2025 is dismissed along with Pending
Application(s), if any.
II. CRL.M.C. 5130/2025: Whether the Petitioner at the stage of
examination of the protected witnesses, entitled to unredacted copy of their
statements recorded under Section 161 CrPC, in order to ensure a fair
trial.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VIKAS CRL.M.C. 5129/2025 & CRL.M.C. 5130/2025 Page 24 of 37
ARORA
Signing Date:03.08.2026
14:41:58
86. In this regard, it would be pertinent to mention that there are two
stages in a criminal trial. The first stage is filing of the Charge-Sheet and
supplying the copies of the statements and documents to the accused in
compliance of Section 207 of the CrPC, which was duly complied in the
present case and the copies of the documents and the statements of
witnesses, were supplied to the Petitioner, vide Order dated 20.03.2024. The
stage of Section 207 of the CrPC, is for the purpose of providing the
material relied upon by the prosecution, in support of the charges against the
Petitioner.
87. At the time of filing the Charge-Sheet, the Prosecution had moved the
Application twice for declaration of certain witnesses as protected witnesses,
which was done, vide the Orders dated 08.04.2022 and 20.03.2023, the
validity of which has already been considered and held that they are the
protected witnesses, as declared by the Court.
88. However, there is a second stage in a criminal trial, which is of
examination of witnesses, after the Charges are framed. Even at this stage, it
has to be an Order in writing of the Court, giving the reasons for not
granting the unre-dacted statements of the protected witnesses.
89. The seminal question which has arisen is: whether the redacted
statements made available to the Accused, would impact effective cross-
examination of the witnesses, and thereby the right of fair trial of the
accused.
90. The right of Fair trial is the cornerstone of our Constitution, ensured
to every litigant who approaches the Court. The Punjab and Haryana High
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VIKAS CRL.M.C. 5129/2025 & CRL.M.C. 5130/2025 Page 25 of 37
ARORA
Signing Date:03.08.2026
14:41:58
Court in the case of Bimal Kumar Khalsa v. Union of India & Ors., 1988
P&H 95, emphasized the importance of open and fair trial. It was observed
that as a general principle of Criminal Law, open public trial is not only
necessary in the interest of justice to the accused, but is also essential in the
interest of the community and serves an important social purpose. For not
only the accused is entitled to receive justice, but the community at large is
interested that an innocent person is so pronounced within the public gaze,
so that he reasonably succeeds in washing off the stigma of guilt and join
back the main stream of the community as a respectable citizen;
alternatively if guilty person is publicly tried and so pronounced, then he is
left with no alibi or excuse, which he could justifiably spin out if the trial is
held in a hush-hush manner in camera, away from the public gaze.
91. Reference was made to the case of Richmond Newspapers Inc v.
Commonwealth of Virginia, 1980-65 L.Ed.-II Series (1973) wherein the
nexus between openness of trial, fairness and perception of fairness, was
recorded in the following words:
“When a shocking crime occurs, a community reaction of
outrage and public protest often follows…….Thereafter
the open processes of justice serve an important
prophylactic purpose, providing an outlet for community
concern, hostility, and emotion. Without an awareness
that society‟s responses to criminal conduct are
underway, natural human reaction of outrage and protest
are frustrate and may manifest themselves in some form
of vengeful “self-help”, as indeed they did regularly in
the activities of vigilante “committees” on our frontiers.
“The accusation and conviction or acquittal, as much
perhaps as the execution of punishment, operate to
restore the imbalance which was created by the offenceSignature Not Verified
Signed By:VIKAS CRL.M.C. 5129/2025 & CRL.M.C. 5130/2025 Page 26 of 37
ARORA
Signing Date:03.08.2026
14:41:58
or public charge, to reaffirm the temporarily lost feeling
of security and, perhaps, to satisfy that that lament “urge
to punish.”
Civilized societies withdraw both from the victim and the
vigilante the enforcement of criminal laws, but they
cannot erase from people‟s consciousness the
fundamental natural yearning to see justice done or even
the urge for retribution. The trucial prophylactic aspects
of the administration of justice cannot function in the
dark; no community catharsis can occur if justice is
“done in a corner, or in any covert manner.”….It is not
enough to say that results alone will satiate the natural
community desire for “satisfaction”. A result considered
untoward may undermine public confidence, and where
the trial has been concealed from public view an
unexpected out-come can cause a reaction that the
system at best has failed and at worst has been
corrupted. To work effectively, it is important that
society’s criminal process “satisfy the appearance of
justice….and the appearance of justice can best be
provided by allowing people to observe it.” …
“People in an open society do not demand infallibility
from their institution, but it is difficult for them to accept
what they are prohibited from observing. When a
criminal trial is conducted in the open, there is at least
an opportunity both for understanding the system in
general and its workings in a particular case:……”
92. In A.K.Roy v. Union of India, AIR 1982 S.C. 710, it was held that the
constitutionally guaranteed right to public trial, cannot be minimized and
the same cannot be avoided, unless it is likely to result in miscarriage of
justice.
93. In Naveen v. State of M.P. 58 (2023) 17 SCC 381, the Apex Court
reiterated the content and scope of the constitutional guarantee of a fair trial.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VIKAS CRL.M.C. 5129/2025 & CRL.M.C. 5130/2025 Page 27 of 37
ARORA
Signing Date:03.08.2026
14:41:58
It was emphasised that the concept of a fair trial cannot be confined to a
rigid or technical formulation but must be understood as requiring a real,
meaningful and impartial opportunity to defend. Fairness in a criminal trial
protects not only the rights of the accused but also the interests of the victim
and society, and that a trial which is reduced to a mere formality or a stage-
managed exercise cannot command the confidence of the justice delivery
system.
94. The relevant observations from the said judgment are reproduced
herein below:
“20. It was further observed that there can be no analytical, all-
comprehensive or exhaustive definition of the concept of a fair
trial, and it may have to be determined in seemingly infinite
variety of actual situations with the ultimate object in mind viz.
whether something that was done or said either before or at the
trial deprived the quality of fairness to a degree where a
miscarriage of justice has resulted. Each one has an inbuilt
right to be dealt with fairly in a criminal trial. Denial of a fair
trial is as much injustice to the accused as is to the victim and
the society. Fair trial obviously would mean a trial before an
impartial Judge, a fair prosecutor, and the atmosphere of
judicial calm. Fair trial means a trial in which bias or
prejudice for or against the accused, the witnesses, or the
cause which is being tried is eliminated. It is inherent in the
concept of due process of law, that condemnation should be
rendered only after the trial in which the hearing is a real one,
not sham or a mere farce and pretence……
It is thus settled that a hasty trial in which proper and sufficient
opportunity has not been provided to the accused to defend
himself/herself would vitiate the trial as being meaningless and
stage managed. It is in violation of the principle of judicial
calm.
21. The principle of “judicial calm” in the context of a fair trial
needs to be elaborated for its observance in letter and spirit. InSignature Not Verified
Signed By:VIKAS CRL.M.C. 5129/2025 & CRL.M.C. 5130/2025 Page 28 of 37
ARORA
Signing Date:03.08.2026
14:41:58
our view, in the hallowed halls of justice, the essence of a fair
and impartial trial lies in the steadfast embrace of judicial
calm. It is incumbent upon a Judge to exude an aura of
tranquillity, offering a sanctuary of reason and measured
deliberation. In the halls of justice, the gavel strikes not in
haste, but in a deliberate cadence ensuring every voice, every
piece of evidence, is accorded its due weight. The expanse of
judicial calm serves not only as a pillar of constitutional
integrity, but as the very bedrock upon which trust in a legal
system is forged. It is a beacon that illuminates the path
towards a verdict untainted by haste or prejudice, thus
upholding the sanctity of justice for all.”
95. These observations have been endorsed and quoted with approval by
the Apex Court in the recent judgement of Dr. Abdul Hameed v State Of
Rajasthan 2026 INSC 734.
96. In the case of Zahira Habibulla H Sheikh & Anr. vs. State of Gujarat
& Ors., (2004) 4 SCC 158, the need for fair trial and the significance and
importance of the witness protection, was emphasized. It was observed that
witnesses are the eyes and ears of justice. If the witness himself is
incapacitated from acting as eyes and ears of justice, the trial gets putrefied
and paralyzed and it no longer constitutes a fair trial. The incapacitation may
be due to several factors, like a witness being not in a position to speak the
truth or due to negligence or ignorance or some corrupt collusion. The
numerous experiences faced by Courts, on account of frequent turning of
witnesses as hostile, either due to threats, coercion, lures and monetary
considerations and innumerable other corrupt practices ingeniously adopted
to smother and stifle truth and realities, must be acknowledged and the
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VIKAS CRL.M.C. 5129/2025 & CRL.M.C. 5130/2025 Page 29 of 37
ARORA
Signing Date:03.08.2026
14:41:58
definite role of the State in protection of witnesses, can never be
overemphasized.
97. Therefore, while having an open trial of an accused, is to provide
fairness of trial not only to the accused but also to the community, however,
the exigency of the nature of the trials in certain terror crimes, requires
extraordinary provisions for protection of witnesses, which is envisaged
under Section 44 of the UAPA and Section 17 of the NIA Act, wherein, it is
specifically provided that such trial may be conducted in camera, so as to
ensure that the prosecution is able to establish its case with the aid of
witnesses, who can speak the truth, without any fear of injury to any person
or to themselves or to their near and dear ones. The only requirement being
that the accused must get due opportunity to effectively defend himself
against the charge. Indeed, the witness anonymity and protection, is
another facet of fair trial, to ensure that truth and justice is not scuttled
only because the witness is not forthcoming due to fear for his life and
harm to his family.
98. While declaring witnesses as protected may be a part of ensuring a
fair trial, to encourage such witnesses to come forth and depose and to bring
the actual evidence on record, but the corresponding question that arises, is
of the right of accused to a fair cross-examination of the witnesses,
includes disclosure of the identity of the witness.
99. In the case of Bimal Kumar Khalsa (supra) the question arose about
disclosing the name and address of prosecution witnesses for the purpose
of cross-examination by the accused. While considering the significance
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VIKAS CRL.M.C. 5129/2025 & CRL.M.C. 5130/2025 Page 30 of 37
ARORA
Signing Date:03.08.2026
14:41:58
and relevance of cross-examination, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana,
observed as under:-
“The main accuser of an accused being the witness who is
deposing against him and accusing him of the commission
of the crime within the witnesses, presence or hearing, the
accused has to be afforded full opportunity of cross-
examining the witness to show that what he had stated was
not a fact as he had neither seen nor heard anything, he
being not present at the scene of the occurrence or the
witness was not a truthful witness, in that he had been so
pronounced by the court at earlier occasions when he had
appeared as a witness or that the witness was inimical to
the accused or his family and, therefore, his testimony be
taken with a pinch of salt and be not accepted at its face
value. If the accused would not be disclosed the address
and identity of the prosecution witness, then how would he
be able to instruct his counsel to effectively cross-examine
such a witness and bring out the truth in court and thereby
defend himself against the false accusation.”
100. While endorsing the observations made in the case of A.K. Roy
(supra), it was observed that initially, it is within the discretion of the Court,
to declare witness as protected and also to define the measures for ensuring
the protection of witness, however, the big question was whether disclosure
of identity of a Protected Witness at the time of examination of the witness,
is required to ensure proper cross-examination by the accused. It was held
that for granting an effective right of cross-examination to the accused, the
name, address and identity of the witness, must be disclosed to him before
the start of the trial. However, it is subject to an exception that the Court
may for weighty reasons, in its wisdom, may decide not to disclose the
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VIKAS CRL.M.C. 5129/2025 & CRL.M.C. 5130/2025 Page 31 of 37
ARORA
Signing Date:03.08.2026
14:41:58
identity and address of the witnesses especially of potential witnesses,
whose life may be in danger.
101. This question was again considered in the case of Kartar Singh v.
State of Punjab, (1994) 3 SCC 569. A reference was made to Section 137 of
the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 which defines what is the meaning of cross-
examination and Section 139 and 145, which speak of the mode of cross-
examination with reference to oral evidence, as well as, the documentary
evidence. It was observed that, “it is the jurisprudence of law that cross-
examination is an acid-test of the truthfulness of the statement made by a
witness on oath in examination-in-chief, the objects of which are:
(1) to destroy or weaken the evidentiary value of the
witness of his adversary;
(2) to elicit facts in favour of the cross-examining
lawyer‟s client from the mouth of the witness of the
adversary party;
(3) to show that the witness is unworthy of belief by
impeaching the credit of the said witness;
And the questions to be addressed in the course of cross-
examination are to test his veracity; to discover who he is and
what is his position in life; and to shake his credit by injuring
his character.”
102. It was further observed that the identity of a witness is necessary in
the course of a normal trial, in order to achieve the above objects and the
right of confrontation is one of the fundamental guarantees so that the
accused could guard himself from being victimized by any false or
invented evidence, that may be tendered by the adversary party. Under
Section 44 of the UAPA and Section 17 of the NIA Act, the right of cross-
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VIKAS CRL.M.C. 5129/2025 & CRL.M.C. 5130/2025 Page 32 of 37
ARORA
Signing Date:03.08.2026
14:41:58
examination is not taken away, but the identity and addresses of the
witnesses are permitted to be withheld.
103. The Supreme Court in the case of Kartar Singh (supra) while
explaining the permissible restrictions upon the right of the accused to cross-
examine the prosecution witnesses, observed as follows: –
“However, when the witnesses are examined in the
presence of the accused, then the accused may have the
chances of knowing the identity of the witnesses if they
are already known to the defence. But if the witnesses are
unknown to the defence, there is no possibility of
knowing the identity of the witnesses even after they enter
into the witness box. During a trial, after examination of
the witness-in-chief, the accused have a right of deferring
the cross-examination and calling the witnesses for
cross-examination on some other day. If the witnesses
are known to the accused, they could collect the material
to cross-examine at the time of cross-examination in such
circumstances. Whatever may be the reasons for non-
disclosure of the witnesses, the fact remains that the
accused persons to be put up for trial under this Act
which provides severe punishment, will be put to
disadvantage to effective cross-examining and exposing
the previous conduct and character of the witnesses.”
104. The Supreme Court, therefore, held that the provision of sub-Sections
(2) and (3) of Section 16 of the TADA, 1987 (para materia to Section 44 of
the UAPA and Section 17 of the NIA Act), treating a right of the accused to
cross-examine the prosecution witnesses is not absolute, but is subject to
exceptions in the case of trials of such offenders.
105. It would also be pertinent to refer to the Judgment of People‟s Union
for Civil Liberties and Anr. v. Union of India, (2004) 9 SCC 580, wherein,
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VIKAS CRL.M.C. 5129/2025 & CRL.M.C. 5130/2025 Page 33 of 37
ARORA
Signing Date:03.08.2026
14:41:58
the Judgment of Kartar Singh (supra) was also considered in the context of
Section 30 of POTA, which also provided for the protected witnesses. It was
observed that “in our view, a fair balance between the rights and interest of
the witness, rights of the accused and larger public interest has been
maintained, under Section 30. It is also aimed to assist the State in justice,
administration and encourage others to do the same under the given
circumstances. Anonymity of witness is not a general rule under Section
30. Identity will be withheld only in exceptional circumstances when the
Special Court is satisfied that the life of the witness is in jeopardy.”
106. It was further observed that the existence and exercise of power to
grant protection to a witness and preserve his anonymity in a criminal trial,
has been universally recognized. The provisions of such nature to protect the
life and liberty of a person, has been enacted in various enactments so as to
enable a person to willingly give evidence in support of the prosecution in
grave criminal cases.
107. A provision of this nature should not be looked at merely from the
angel of protection of witness whose life may be in danger if his identity is
disclosed, but also in the interest of the community to ensure that heinous
offences like terrorism, are effectively prosecuted and punished. If witnesses
are not given appropriate protection, they would never come forward to give
evidence and there would be no effective prosecution of terror offences.
108. In the case of People‟s Union for Civil Liberties and Anr. (supra) the
Supreme Court, observed that the protected status to a witness may be
granted by the Court on being satisfying that the life of a witness is in
danger. In order to safeguard the right of an accused to fair trial and basic
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VIKAS CRL.M.C. 5129/2025 & CRL.M.C. 5130/2025 Page 34 of 37
ARORA
Signing Date:03.08.2026
14:41:58
requirements of due process, a mechanism can be evolved whereby the
Special Court is obligated to satisfy itself about the truthfulness and
reliability of the statement or deposition of the witness whose identity is
sought to be protected. It was held that it was not feasible to suggest a
procedure to be adopted by Special Courts for keeping the identity of
witness a secret. It shall be appropriate for the concerned Court, to take
into account all the factual circumstances of the individual case and to
forge appropriate methods to ensure the safety of individual witness. A
balance is required to be struck between the right of the witness as to his life
and liberty and the right of the community in effective prosecution of the
person guilty of the heinous crime, on one hand and the right of the accused
to a fair trial, on the other hand.
109. The main concern of the Accused is the right of his cross-examination
being taken away. However, as has been explained in the case of R vs.
Atkins 2000 (2) NZ LR 46 by the Court of Appeal New Zealand that the
Courts must be mindful that the matters deposed about have not been tested
by cross-examination and that there was no opportunity to present
contradictory evidence in respect of undisclosed assertions.
110. In such like matters, the Court would necessarily consider untested
evidence and evaluate it accordingly, keeping in mind that there was no
cross-examination and also filter the evidence which may be in the realm of
hear se. The weight to be given to such evidence would depend upon many
different facts including source, reliability and the existence or absence of
supporting material. Such care must be taken by the Court in making the
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VIKAS CRL.M.C. 5129/2025 & CRL.M.C. 5130/2025 Page 35 of 37
ARORA
Signing Date:03.08.2026
14:41:58
evaluation and in arriving at the just conclusions. Unless the evidence is
sufficient to warrant prosecution, it should not be accepted.
111. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, it emerges that while the
accused has a right to a fair trial and must be granted an effective and
meaningful opportunity for cross-examination of the Protected Witnesses,
and the anonymity of a witness, may have some impact on the extent of
cross-examination, but as laid down in Kartar Singh (supra) and upheld in
People‟s Union for Civil Liberties and Anr. (supra), it is for the learned
Special Judge to consider at this stage of recording evidence, the case of
each Protected Witness and may refer to the statement of the witness, its
significance and the relevance in the entire prosecution case, in the context
of the entire prosecution case, and the aspects sought to be proved and the
potential threat to his life, to ascertain whether the address, name and the
identity of the witness, can be reasonably disclosed, for which the
appropriate measures may be defined in the reasoned Order, by the learned
Special Judge. If found otherwise, the identity of the accused may be
withheld, but again give the reason why the name and identity, cannot be
disclosed.
112. The extraordinary situation of threat to the witness would only require
an extra caution by the Special Court, while assessing the evidence of such
Protected Witness and due caution and trepidation must be exercised, while
reading such evidence. However, if the circumstances so demand, the
identity of witness be withheld, to ensure that he comes forward to depose.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VIKAS CRL.M.C. 5129/2025 & CRL.M.C. 5130/2025 Page 36 of 37
ARORA
Signing Date:03.08.2026
14:41:58
Conclusion:
113. In view of the aforesaid, CRL.M.C. 5130/2025 is allowed and the
impugned Order dated 24.07.2025, is hereby, set-aside. The matter is
remanded back to the learned Special Judge, to specifically consider before
the recording of their respective testimony, whether the disclosure of name,
address and identity of Protected Witnesses, X-5 and X-11, would be life
threatening to the said witnesses, who may then refuse to depose or whether
these details can be disclosed by ensuring appropriate measures to ensure
their safety and security. The details as sought by the Petitioner, may
accordingly, be protected or disclosed by recording due reasons.
114. The parties are directed to appear before the learned Special Judge, on
10.08.2026.
115. CRL.M.C. 5129/2025 for challenging the Orders dated 08.04.2022
and 20.03.2023 declaring the witnesses as protected, is dismissed. Pending
Application(s), if any are disposed of accordingly.
(NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA)
JUDGE
JULY 29, 2026/va/RS
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VIKAS CRL.M.C. 5129/2025 & CRL.M.C. 5130/2025 Page 37 of 37
ARORA
Signing Date:03.08.2026
14:41:58
