Anticipatory Bail — Impermissibility of Time-Bound Protection Till Filing of Charge-Sheet
(Paras 10–15, 25–27)
Once anticipatory bail is granted upon judicial consideration of the nature of allegations, role of the accused, and surrounding circumstances, the protection cannot ordinarily be restricted till filing of the charge-sheet. Imposition of expiry clauses tied to procedural milestones such as completion of investigation or filing of charge-sheet is contrary to settled constitutional principles governing Section 438 CrPC.
Section 438 CrPC — Grant of Anticipatory Bail After Filing of Charge-Sheet — Maintainability
(Paras 16–17)
There is no restriction in Section 438 CrPC preventing grant of anticipatory bail even after filing of charge-sheet or taking of cognizance. Filing of charge-sheet by itself does not extinguish the jurisdiction of the Court to grant pre-arrest bail in appropriate cases.
Constitution Bench — Duration of Anticipatory Bail
(Paras 18–20, 25)
Anticipatory bail need not invariably be limited to a fixed period. Protection ordinarily continues till conclusion of trial unless special reasons exist warranting limitation. Filing of charge-sheet, summoning of accused, or framing of charge does not automatically terminate anticipatory bail.
Personal Liberty — Arrest Not Mandatory Upon Filing of Charge-Sheet
(Paras 21–23)
Section 170 CrPC does not mandate arrest of the accused at the time of filing of charge-sheet. Arrest is justified only where custodial interrogation is necessary, there exists risk of absconding, tampering of evidence, or other compelling reasons. Mere filing of charge-sheet cannot compel surrender if the accused has cooperated during investigation.
Addition of Graver Offences After Grant of Bail — Legal Consequences
(Paras 30–34)
Where after grant of bail additional cognizable and non-bailable offences of a graver nature are added, the Court must apply its mind afresh. The investigating agency cannot unilaterally arrest the accused; it must seek appropriate orders under Sections 437(5) or 439(2) CrPC for cancellation or modification of bail.
ANALYSIS OF FACTS AND LAW
The appellant, brother-in-law (devar) of the deceased, was implicated in FIR No. 560/2024 registered at Akbarpur Police Station, Kanpur Dehat, for offences under Section 80(2)/85 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (dowry death framework) and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
The High Court initially granted anticipatory bail but limited its operation “till filing of the charge-sheet.” Upon filing of the charge-sheet, the protection automatically lapsed. The appellant filed a fresh anticipatory bail application, which was rejected by the High Court without indicating any change in circumstances.
The Supreme Court found the approach of the High Court fundamentally flawed. If the Court had, in the earlier order, found the allegations, role, and circumstances sufficient to grant anticipatory bail, it was incumbent upon it to record specific reasons for declining continuation of protection.
The Court relied upon binding precedents:
The principle that anticipatory bail can be granted even after filing of charge-sheet was reiterated from Bharat Chaudhary v. State of Bihar and Ravindra Saxena v. State of Rajasthan.
The Constitution Bench in Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) clarified that anticipatory bail ordinarily does not expire at filing of charge-sheet or summoning of accused, and duration cannot be arbitrarily curtailed.
Further, Siddharth v. State of Uttar Pradesh held that arrest at the stage of filing of charge-sheet is not mandatory and custody is not synonymous with arrest.
The Court also relied upon Md. Asfak Alam v. State of Jharkhand, where rejection of anticipatory bail merely because charge-sheet was filed was disapproved.
The Supreme Court emphasized that anticipatory bail jurisprudence is anchored in Article 21 — personal liberty cannot be made dependent on procedural milestones unless compelling reasons are demonstrated.
Risk management can be addressed through conditions ensuring cooperation, attendance, and non-interference with evidence, rather than by imposing automatic expiry clauses.
ADDITION OF GRAVER OFFENCES — CLARIFICATION
The Court further addressed a practical scenario: where after grant of bail additional serious non-bailable offences are added.
Relying on Pradeep Ram v. State of Jharkhand and Prahlad Singh Bhati v. NCT of Delhi, the Court clarified:
If graver offences are added, the accused does not automatically lose liberty. However, the Court must reconsider entitlement to bail in changed circumstances. The investigating agency must seek cancellation under Sections 437(5) or 439(2) CrPC. It cannot arrest the accused without judicial order where bail subsists.
The Court summarised four principles:
The accused may surrender and seek bail for newly added offences.
The investigating agency may apply for cancellation.
The Court may order custody upon cancellation.
Where bail exists, arrest for added offences requires judicial authorization.
RATIO DECIDENDI
Anticipatory bail once granted cannot ordinarily be restricted till filing of the charge-sheet. Filing of charge-sheet, taking cognizance, or issuance of summons does not extinguish protection under Section 438 CrPC. Duration of anticipatory bail is a matter of judicial discretion and cannot be curtailed by arbitrary time limits unless special reasons are recorded. Arrest at the stage of filing of charge-sheet is not mandatory where the accused has cooperated.
RESULT
The impugned High Court order rejecting anticipatory bail was set aside.
The appellant was directed to be released on anticipatory bail in the event of arrest, subject to appropriate conditions imposed by the Investigating Officer.
After release, the appellant shall appear before the Trial Court and furnish fresh bail bond.
The Registry was directed to forward a copy of the order to the Registrar General of the Allahabad High Court.
Pending applications stood disposed of.
