In a significant pronouncement that reaffirms the constitutional guarantee of personal liberty, the Supreme Court of India has set aside a highly restrictive anticipatory bail order granted by the Allahabad High Court. The High Court, while initially granting protection from arrest to an accused brother-in-law in a dowry death case, had imposed a peculiar condition: the bail would expire upon the filing of the charge-sheet. When the appellant sought renewal of protection post-charge-sheet, the High Court rejected his application, compelling him to approach the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court’s intervention
is not merely a correction of an individual case; it is a clarion call against
the growing tendency of courts to grant anticipatory bail with artificial
expiry dates. The judgment meticulously traces the arc of settled law—from the
landmark Constitution Bench decision in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia to the
authoritative pronouncement in Sushila Aggarwal—and holds, in unequivocal
terms, that once a court finds an accused worthy of pre-arrest protection, that
protection cannot be whimsically truncated by procedural milestones.
I. The Facts: A Dowry Death, A Brother-in-Law,
and A Time-Locked Bail
The appellant, Sumit, is the devar
(brother-in-law) of a woman who died under mysterious circumstances at her
matrimonial home within seven months of marriage. The First Information Report
(FIR), lodged by the mother of the deceased, alleged offences under Section
80(2)/85 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) and
Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry
Prohibition Act, 1961.
Apprehending arrest, Sumit filed
an anticipatory bail application before the Allahabad High Court. The High
Court, by order dated 14.05.2025, granted anticipatory bail. However, the order
contained an unusual and self-destructive clause: the protection was to operate
“till the filing of the police charge-sheet.” No reasons were assigned for
imposing this temporal restriction. The Court merely observed that, having
regard to the nature of allegations, the role of the applicant, and the settled
principles of law, the prayer for bail was “liable to be allowed without any
further consideration of the merits of the case.”
Once the charge-sheet was filed,
the protection automatically stood extinguished. The appellant filed a fresh
anticipatory bail application (No.11038/2025), which was rejected on 07.01.2026
by the High Court. No fresh consideration of the merits was undertaken; the
rejection was a fait accompli dictated by the earlier time-locked order.
Aggrieved, the appellant
approached the Supreme Court.
II. The Core Issue: Can Anticipatory Bail Be
Granted Only Till the Filing of Charge-Sheet?
The Supreme Court framed the
central question with characteristic clarity: What is the rationale behind
restricting the grant of anticipatory bail up to the stage of completion of
investigation and filing of the charge-sheet?
The Court expressed its
bewilderment at the High Court’s approach:
“Either the Court may grant
anticipatory bail or may decline. However, once having exercised its discretion
in favour of the accused upon consideration of the overall matter, there was no
good reason for the High Court to restrict it up to the stage of filing of the
charge-sheet.”
If the High Court found, on a
consideration of the nature of allegations, the role of the accused, and the
overall facts and circumstances, that a case for anticipatory bail was made
out, then there was no logical justification for withdrawing that protection at
a future date solely because the investigating agency had completed its report.
The Court emphasized that the mere filing of a charge-sheet does not alter the
intrinsic merits of the case for bail.
III. The Law: A Journey from Gurbaksh Singh
Sibbia to Sushila Aggarwal
The Supreme Court embarked on a
comprehensive survey of the law on anticipatory bail, tracing its evolution
from the seminal Constitution Bench decision in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State
of Punjab (1980) to the authoritative pronouncement in Sushila Aggarwal v.
State (NCT of Delhi) (2020).
I. Anticipatory Bail Can Be Granted at Any
Time Before Arrest
In Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia, the
Constitution Bench laid down the foundational principle: Anticipatory bail can
be granted at any time so long as the applicant has not been arrested. The
Court rejected the notion that the power under Section 438, Cr.P.C. (now
Section 482, BNSS, 2023) is limited to the pre-charge-sheet stage. The object
of the provision is to prevent undue harassment of individuals by pre-trial
arrest and detention.
II. Filing of Charge-Sheet Is Not a Bar
In Bharat Chaudhary v. State
of Bihar (2003), this Court categorically held:
“From the perusal of Section 438,
Cr.P.C., we find no restriction in regard to exercise of this power in a
suitable case either by the Court of Session, High Court or this Court even
when cognizance is taken or a charge-sheet is filed. The fact that a court has
either taken cognizance of the complaint or the investigating agency has filed
a charge-sheet, would not by itself prevent the courts concerned from granting
anticipatory bail in appropriate cases.”
This principle was reaffirmed in Ravindra
Saxena v. State of Rajasthan (2010), where the Supreme Court set aside an order
of the High Court rejecting anticipatory bail solely on the ground that the
charge-sheet had been filed. Such an approach, the Court held, was “wholly
erroneous.”
III. The Constitution Bench in Sushila
Aggarwal (2020): The Final Word
The reference in Sushila Aggarwal
arose precisely from the kind of confusion perpetuated by the Allahabad High
Court in the present case. Two questions were referred to a five-Judge Bench:
1.Whether the protection under
Section 438, Cr.P.C. should be limited to a fixed period to enable the accused
to surrender and seek regular bail?
2.Whether the life of an
anticipatory bail order should end at the stage when the accused is summoned by
the court or charges are framed?
The Constitution Bench
answered both questions with remarkable clarity:
Protection should not invariably
be limited to a fixed period. It should enure in favour of the accused without
any restriction on time. Normal conditions under Section 437(3) read with
Section 438(2) should be imposed. However, if there are specific facts or
features in regard to any offence, it is open to the court to impose any
appropriate condition, including a fixed nature of relief or its being tied to
an event. But such a restriction must be justified by reasons, not imposed as a
routine or default clause.
The life or duration of an
anticipatory bail order does not end normally at the time and stage when the
accused is summoned by the court, or when charges are framed. It can continue
till the end of the trial. Again, if there are any special or peculiar features
necessitating the court to limit the tenure, it is open to do so, but reasons
must be recorded.
The Bench further observed:
“The mere fact that an accused is
given relief under Section 438 at one stage, per se does not mean that upon the
filing of a charge-sheet, he is necessarily to surrender or/and apply for
regular bail. If a charge-sheet is filed where the accused is on anticipatory
bail, the normal implication would be that there was no occasion for the
investigating agency or the police to require his custody, because there would
have been nothing in his behaviour requiring such a step.”
This reasoning is profound. An
accused who has been granted anticipatory bail and has cooperated with the
investigation throughout has, by his conduct, demonstrated that he does not
require to be arrested. The filing of a charge-sheet is, in fact, a testament
to his cooperation. To then compel him to surrender and seek regular bail is
not only illogical but also punitive and contrary to the very object of
anticipatory bail.
IV. No Obligation to Arrest at the Time of
Filing Charge-Sheet
The Supreme Court also relied
upon the decision in Siddharth v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2022) , which gave
its imprimatur to the view taken by the Delhi High Court in High Court of Delhi
v. CBI (2004) . Section 170, Cr.P.C. (now Section 193, BNSS, 2023) does not
impose an obligation on the investigating officer to arrest each and every
accused at the time of filing the charge-sheet. The word “custody” in Section
170 does not contemplate police or judicial custody; it merely connotes the presentation
of the accused before the court.
If the investigating officer does
not believe that the accused will abscond or disobey summons, and the accused
has cooperated throughout, there is no compulsion to arrest. Personal liberty
is a fundamental constitutional value, and the power to arrest, though lawful,
must be exercised with justification, not as a routine.
In Md. Asfak Alam v. State of
Jharkhand (2023) , this Court deprecated the casual approach of High Courts
in rejecting anticipatory bail applications after charge-sheet and directing
the accused to surrender and seek regular bail. Such a direction, the Court
held, was “rubbing salt in the wound” and could not stand.
IV. The High Court’s Error: A Timed Bail
Without Reason
Applying these settled
principles, the Supreme Court found the Allahabad High Court’s order to be legally
unsustainable.
a. The initial order granting
anticipatory bail “till filing of charge-sheet” was bereft of any reasoning
justifying such a restriction. No “specific facts or features” were recorded to
warrant this truncated protection.
b. The subsequent order rejecting
the fresh anticipatory bail application merely followed the earlier order; it
did not independently assess whether, in the changed circumstances (the filing
of charge-sheet), the appellant deserved protection.
c. The High Court failed to
appreciate that the appellant had cooperated throughout the investigation and
had not misused his liberty. There was no allegation of tampering with
evidence, threatening witnesses, or absconding.
The Supreme Court held that once
a court exercises its discretion in favour of an accused and finds a case for
anticipatory bail made out, the protection cannot be whimsically withdrawn at a
procedural milestone. Risk management is achieved through conditions—cooperation,
attendance, non-tampering—not through arbitrary expiry dates.
V. The Clarification: What Happens When New
Offences Are Added?
Before parting, the Supreme Court
offered a crucial clarification for cases where, after grant of bail, new
cognizable and non-bailable offences are added in the charge-sheet. Relying on Prahlad
Singh Bhati v. NCT Delhi (2001) and Pradeep Ram v. State of Jharkhand (2019) ,
the Court laid down the following principles:
1.With the addition of a new
cognizable and non-bailable offence of a serious nature, the accused becomes
disentitled to the liberty earlier granted in relation to the original
offences. The nature of the case changes materially.
2.The accused can surrender and
apply for bail for the newly added offences. If bail is refused, he can
certainly be arrested.
3.The investigating agency can seek
an order from the court under Sections 437(5) or 439(2), Cr.P.C. (or
corresponding provisions under BNSS) for arrest and custody.
4.The court, in exercise of its
power under Sections 437(5) or 439(2), can direct the arrest of an accused
already on bail upon addition of graver offences. This may be done without
necessarily cancelling the earlier bail; it is a fresh consideration warranted
by the altered legal landscape.
5.For arresting an accused
already on bail upon addition of new offences, the investigating agency must
obtain an order from the court which had granted the bail.
This clarification is
significant. It balances the need for fair investigation in graver offences
with the constitutional protection against arbitrary arrest. The addition of
serious offences does not automatically invalidate an existing bail order, but
it does empower the court and the investigating agency to revisit the question
of custody.
VI. The Final Order: Protection Restored
The Supreme Court, finding no
justification for the denial of anticipatory bail, set aside the impugned order
of the High Court and directed as follows:
a.- In the event of arrest, the
appellant shall be released on anticipatory bail on such terms and conditions
as the Investigating Officer deems fit to impose.
b.- Upon release, the appellant
shall appear before the Trial Court and furnish fresh bail bonds.
c.- The order of the High Court
granting anticipatory bail only till the filing of charge-sheet was implicitly
set aside, and the protection was effectively restored.
The Court also directed the
Registry to forward a copy of this order to the Registrar General of the
Allahabad High Court for being placed before the Hon’ble Chief Justice, to
ensure that such unsustainable practices are curbed institutionally.
VII. Key Takeaways: The Law Restated
1. Anticipatory bail is not a
stop-gap arrangement. Once granted, it is not intended to expire upon the
filing of a charge-sheet or taking of cognizance. It can continue till the end
of trial.
2. Timed anticipatory bail is
the exception, not the rule. A court may limit the tenure of protection
only if specific facts or features of the case justify it. Such restriction
must be supported by reasons recorded in writing.
3. Filing of charge-sheet is
not a disqualification. The mere completion of investigation and submission
of a police report does not, by itself, disentitle an accused to anticipatory
bail.
4. Cooperation with
investigation strengthens the case for bail. An accused who has cooperated
and not misused his liberty has earned the right to continued protection.
5. Arrest at the time of
charge-sheet is not mandatory. Section 170 Cr.P.C./Section 193 BNSS does
not compel the investigating officer to produce every accused in custody.
Personal liberty must be respected.
6. Addition of new offences
requires fresh consideration. If graver, cognizable, non-bailable offences
are added, the court must apply its mind afresh. The existing bail order does
not automatically protect the accused against the newly added offences.
7. Cancellation of bail is the
remedy for misuse, not artificial expiry. If an accused violates
conditions, the remedy lies in cancellation under Section 439(2), Cr.P.C., not
in imposing a self-destruct clause at inception.
VIII. Conclusion: Liberty Cannot Be Timed
The Supreme Court’s judgment in Sumit
v. State of U.P. is a powerful reaffirmation of the constitutional value of
personal liberty. It reminds every court exercising jurisdiction under
anticipatory bail provisions that discretion must be exercised judicially, not
arbitrarily; protection must be meaningful, not illusory.
To grant anticipatory bail but
limit its life to the filing of a charge-sheet is to grant with one hand and
take away with the other. It leaves the accused in a state of perpetual
uncertainty, compelling him to repeatedly seek judicial intervention at every
procedural milestone. This is neither the object of Section 438 Cr.P.C./Section
482 BNSS nor the mandate of Article 21 of the Constitution.
The Allahabad High Court’s
innovation—bail till charge-sheet—has been firmly and finally rejected. The law
laid down in Sushila Aggarwal stands vindicated. Anticipatory bail, once
granted, is not a ticket with an expiry date. It is a shield that protects
liberty throughout the trial, unless justifiably revoked.
Judgment Name: Sumit v.
State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. (Criminal Appeal arising out of SLP (Crl.)
No. 1536 of 2026), Supreme Court of India, decided on [Date of Judgment].
0 Comments