Rahul Sharma v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr., 2025

• The case arises out of the murder of Vijendra Singh in Shahdara, Delhi, in April 2019.

   

• Raj Sharma, one of the accused in the case, was granted bail by the Delhi High Court after spending nearly six years in custody.

• The victim’s son, Rahul Sharma (petitioner), approached the Supreme Court seeking cancellation of bail granted to Raj Sharma.

• The petitioner alleged that after the accused were released on bail, several prosecution witnesses turned hostile and police complaints were lodged alleging intimidation and threats to witnesses.

• The Delhi High Court, while granting bail, noted factors such as:

  • Raj Sharma’s prolonged incarceration (six years);

  • His name not appearing in the dying declaration of the deceased;

  • The completion of examination of prosecution witnesses.

1. Whether the bail granted to the accused Raj Sharma should be cancelled due to allegations of witness intimidation?

2. Whether the Trial Court is empowered to take suo motu action against witnesses making false statements in a criminal trial?

3. What safeguards should be ensured to protect remaining witnesses during the ongoing trial?

This judgment serves as a strong reaffirmation of the Supreme Court’s intolerance toward perjury and hostile testimony in criminal trials.

The Court highlighted two crucial aspects:

1. Judicial Accountability for Truth-Telling:

   • The direction for suo motu prosecution of lying witnesses strengthens the trial courts’ role as guardians of truth.

   • It underscores that witness credibility is essential for justice and that dishonesty in testimony cannot be ignored or condoned.

2. Balance Between Liberty and Justice:

   • By not immediately cancelling bail, the Court upheld the principle of personal liberty, but simultaneously fortified procedural safeguards to prevent witness intimidation.

   • This reflects a nuanced balance between individual rights and the integrity of the criminal process.

The order also sends a broader institutional message to subordinate courts across India — that they must not remain passive when witnesses attempt to derail justice through falsehood, but must exercise statutory powers under Section 195 CrPC and Section 193 IPC to protect the sanctity of the trial.