Anticipatory Bail Cannot Be Restricted till Filing of Chargesheet Ordinarily

Source: Supreme Court

Why in News?

A Bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and KV Viswanathan in the matter of Sumit v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. (2026) set aside an order of the Allahabad High Court which had restricted anticipatory bail protection only till the filing of the police chargesheet and later rejected a fresh anticipatory bail plea after the chargesheet was filed. 

• The Supreme Court held that such mechanical restriction is contrary to settled law.

What was the Background of Sumit v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. (2026) Case? 

• An FIR was registered by the Uttar Pradesh Police for offences under Sections 80(2)/85 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. 
• The appellant, brother-in-law of the deceased woman, sought anticipatory bail. 
• The High Court initially granted anticipatory bail but limited it “till the filing of the police chargesheet.” 
• After filing of the chargesheet, the protection lapsed and the second anticipatory bail application was rejected. 
• Aggrieved, the appellant approached the Supreme Court of India.

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Court termed the High Court’s earlier order as “very unusual.” 
• It observed that once discretion is exercised in favour of the accused after considering the allegations and role attributed, there is no justification to restrict protection only till filing of the chargesheet. 
• Either anticipatory bail may be granted or declined. However, once granted, it ordinarily continues without a fixed time limit. 
• The Court relied upon the Constitution Bench decision in Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi), which held that anticipatory bail should not invariably be limited to a fixed period. 
• The Court emphasized, “Risk management can be taken care of by way of imposing conditions of cooperation, attendance, and non-tampering, not by imposing time limits.” 
• If circumstances change, modification or cancellation may be sought under the BNSS, 2023. However, expiry clauses inserted at inception are unsustainable. 

What if Graver Offences Are Added Later? 

The Court clarified the legal position where new cognizable and non-bailable offences are added after grant of bail: 

• The accused can surrender and apply for bail for newly added cognizable and non-bailable offences. If refused, arrest may follow. 
• The investigating agency can seek orders under Sections 437(5) or 439(2) of Cr.P.C. for arrest and custody of the accused. 
• Courts may direct arrest and custody after cancellation of bail. 
• Even without formally cancelling earlier bail, courts may order custody upon addition of graver offences if justified.

What is Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 ? 

• Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNNS) provides the statutory framework for anticipatory bail in the Indian criminal justice system. 
• This provision empowers the High Court and Court of Sessions to grant pre-arrest bail to individuals who apprehend arrest for alleged commission of non-bailable offences. 
• Section 482 establishes the legal mechanism through which a person may seek judicial protection from potential arrest, maintaining personal liberty while ensuring cooperation with investigation. 
• The provision stipulates that any person with reasonable belief regarding possible arrest for a non-bailable offence may apply for anticipatory bail before the High Court or Court of Session. 
• Upon application, the Court is vested with discretionary power to direct release on bail in the event of arrest of the applicant. 
• The Court is empowered to impose specific conditions while granting anticipatory bail to balance individual liberty with investigative requirements. 
• Mandatory conditions include requiring the applicant to make themselves available for police interrogation as and when required. 
• The applicant is prohibited from making any inducement, threat, or promise to witness or persons acquainted with case facts. 
• An anticipatory bail grantee is restricted from leaving India without prior court permission. 
• The Court may impose additional conditions as deemed necessary under Section 480(3) of the BNS. 
• Upon grant of anticipatory bail, if the person is subsequently arrested without warrant, they shall be released on bail upon readiness to provide bail. 
• If a Magistrate taking cognizance of the offence determines that a warrant should be issued against the person, it must be a bailable warrant in conformity with the court's direction. 
• The provision specifically excludes its applicability in cases involving accusations under Section 65 (punishment for rape in certain cases) and Section 70(2) (gang rape on a woman under 18 years of age) of the BNS. 
• Section 482 represents the legislative continuation of the provision formerly contained in Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC).