Incredibility of witness tampering allegations made while accused is in continuous custody

Allegations raised by prosecution agencies that an accused has influenced witnesses or tampered with evidence must be supported by concrete, credible, and contemporaneous material. Assertions that an incarcerated accused instructed prospective witnesses to evade investigation carry little weight when the accused was in continuous judicial custody long before the individual was formally identified or arrayed as a witness. Courts must critically examine the timeline of events before accepting generalized allegations of witness interference. Vague or speculative claims regarding potential tampering cannot serve as an automatic ground to deny bail, especially when primary witnesses have already given recorded statements under statutory provisions. The prosecution bears the burden of establishing a direct, plausible nexus between the incarcerated accused and any alleged witness intimidation. In the absence of cogent evidentiary support, speculative claims of influence must be rejected during bail hearings. (Arvind Dham v. Directorate of Enforcement | 2026 INSC 12)