The Supreme Court on February 9, 2026, set aside the Allahabad High Court’s order restricting anticipatory bail only till the filing of the charge-sheet, holding that such time-bound protection is legally unsustainable in the absence of special reasons.
Case Details
- Case Title: Sumit v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.
- Court: Supreme Court of India
- Bench: Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K.V. Viswanathan
- Date of Judgment: 09 February 2026
- Citation: 2026 INSC 145
- Case Number: Criminal Appeal arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 1536 of 2026
Background: Dowry Death Allegations and FIR
The appeal arose from an order of the Allahabad High Court dated January 7, 2026, rejecting a fresh anticipatory bail application filed by the appellant, Sumit.
The First Information Report bearing No. 560/2024 was registered at Akbarpur Police Station, District Kanpur Dehat, Uttar Pradesh, for offences punishable under Sections 80(2)/85 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 .
The appellant was the brother-in-law (devar) of the deceased, who had been married to his brother approximately seven months before her death.
The deceased died under mysterious circumstances at her matrimonial home, leading her mother to lodge the FIR. The allegations suggested a case of dowry death .
Apprehending arrest, the appellant had earlier approached the High Court and was granted anticipatory bail. However, the High Court limited the protection
“till the filing of the police charge-sheet”.
High Court’s Unusual Limitation on Anticipatory Bail
The Supreme Court noted that although the High Court granted anticipatory bail after considering the nature of allegations and the role of the applicant, it restricted the protection only up to the filing of the charge-sheet.
Once the charge sheet was filed, the protection ceased. The appellant then filed a fresh anticipatory bail application, which was rejected. This rejection prompted the present appeal.
Expressing its disapproval, the Supreme Court observed:
“We fail to understand what is the idea in restricting the grant of anticipatory bail upto the stage of completion of investigation and filing of the chargesheet.”
The Court emphasized that once discretion is exercised in favour of the accused after considering the overall facts, there must be substantial reasons to curtail such protection.
Position of Law on Anticipatory Bail After Filing of Charge-Sheet
The Supreme Court undertook an extensive review of precedent to clarify the legal position regarding anticipatory bail and its duration.
Relying on Bharat Chaudhary v. State of Bihar (2003) 8 SCC 77, the Court reiterated that there is no restriction in Section 438 CrPC on granting anticipatory bail even after filing of the charge-sheet or taking cognizance .
Similarly, in Ravindra Saxena v. State of Rajasthan (2010) 1 SCC 684, it was held that anticipatory bail can be granted at any time so long as the applicant has not been arrested .
Constitution Bench Ruling in Sushila Aggarwal
The Court placed significant reliance on the Constitution Bench decision in Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2020) 5 SCC 1, which categorically held:
“The protection granted to a person under Section 438 CrPC should not invariably be limited to a fixed period; it should enure in favour of the accused without any restriction on time.”
Further, the Constitution Bench clarified that anticipatory bail does not normally end upon summoning or framing of charges and can continue till the end of the trial unless special reasons justify limitation.
The present Bench reaffirmed that the filing of a charge-sheet cannot, by itself, compel an accused to surrender or seek regular bail.
Custody and Arrest: Not an Automatic Requirement
The Court also referred to the decision in Siddharth v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2022) 1 SCC 676, where it was held that Section 170 CrPC does not mandate the arrest of every accused at the time of filing the charge-sheet.
It emphasized that personal liberty is a constitutional mandate and that arrest must be justified by necessity, such as custodial interrogation, risk of absconding, or tampering with evidence, not by procedural routine.
The judgment also cited Md. Asfak Alam v. State of Jharkhand (2023 SCC OnLine SC 892), where the Supreme Court criticized a “casual approach” in directing surrender merely because the charge-sheet had been filed.
Supreme Court’s Findings
Summarizing the settled law, the Bench held:
“Thus, the position of law is well settled: once anticipatory bail is granted, it ordinarily continues without fixed expiry. The filing of a charge-sheet, taking of cognizance, or issuance of summons does not terminate protection unless special reasons are recorded.”
The Court clarified that risk management can be addressed by imposing conditions relating to cooperation, attendance, and non-tampering. Arbitrary expiry clauses at inception are impermissible.
Consequently, the impugned order of the High Court was set aside.
Directions Issued by the Supreme Court
The Court directed that in the event of arrest, the appellant shall be released on anticipatory bail subject to conditions imposed by the Investigating Officer.
After release, the appellant must appear before the Trial Court and furnish fresh bail bonds.
Additionally, the Registry was directed to forward a copy of the order to the Registrar General of the Allahabad High Court for placing it before the Chief Justice.
Clarification on Addition of New Offences
Before concluding, the Supreme Court addressed an important legal question: what happens if, after the grant of bail, new cognizable and non-bailable offences are added?
Referring to Pradeep Ram v. State of Jharkhand (2019 Crl LJ 3801) and Prahlad Singh Bhati v. NCT Delhi (2001) 4 SCC 280, the Court held that the addition of graver offences may disentitle the accused from earlier liberty.
The Court laid down that in such circumstances, courts must apply their mind afresh. Investigating agencies may seek cancellation under Sections 437(5) or 439(2) CrPC, and arrest cannot be automatic without judicial intervention.
Follow Mahamana News For More Recent Judgments
