The Supreme Court in dowry death-related matter observed that once an anticipatory bail is granted, then it will continue without fixed expiry. The mere filing of a charge-sheet, the taking of cognizance, or the issuance of summons shall not, by itself, operate to terminate the protection granted, unless specific reasons are duly recorded.
The above observation was made by the Division Bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K.V. Viswanathan in the Criminal Appeal of appellant Sumit (brother-in-law of deceased), who has challenged the impugned order dated 07.01.2026, which has been passed by Allahabad High Court in an anticipatory bail application which was rejected.
In fact, the first information report was lodged by the mother of the deceased against applellant under Section 80(2)/85 BNS and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, at Akbarpur Police Station, Kanpur Dehat. It was alleged that, the deceased died under mysterious circumstances at her matrimonial home.
While apprehending arrest in the matter, the appellant filed an anticipatory bail application before the High Court, and without considering the merits of the case, he was released on furnishing a personal bond until the filing of the police charge sheet.
During the hearing of the case, the Supreme Court noted that,
“A plain reading of the order referred to above would indicate that the anticipatory bail was granted by the High Court as prayed for but the same was limited only upto filing of the chargesheet. Once the chargesheet was filed, the protection earlier granted came to an end and in such circumstances, the appellant once again prayed for anticipatory bail by way of a fresh application which came to be rejected by the High Court.”
The Court further found that the High Court may either grant or refuse anticipatory bail, however, once the discretion has been judiciously exercised in favour of the accused upon a detailed consideration of the matter, then there exists no justifiable basis for the High Court to confine such protection only until the filing of the charge-sheet.
Significantly, the Court had discussed the statutory provisions of anticipatory bail by citing various earlier judgments of different High Courts.
In respect of the above, the Bench referred the judgment passed in Bharat Chaudhary and Anr. vs. State of Bihar and Anr. reported in (2003)8 SCC 77, in which it was held that,
“……….there is no restriction in Section 438 Cr.P.C. to grant anticipatory bail even when charge sheet has been filed and cognizance is taken.”
Further, the Court reiterated that,
“The Constitution Bench in the case of Sushila Aggarwal (supra) held that duration is a matter of judicial discretion and cannot be confined by arbitrary timelines. In the case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre vs. State of Maharashtra, reported in (2011)1 SCC 694, this Court similarly cautioned that anticipatory bail should not hinge on procedural milestones.”
Accordingly, the Court set aside the impugned order with the direction that in the event of the arrest of the appellant in relation to the offence, then he shall be released on anticipatory bail, subject to such terms and conditions as the concerned Investigating Officer may deem fit and proper to impose.
Upon being released, the appellant shall thereafter appear before the Trial Court and furnish a fresh bail bond in accordance with the law.
Another important legal question that was to be decided by the Supreme Court that, if during the pendency of the investigation, an accused has been enlarged on bail, and subsequently, upon completion thereof, a charge-sheet is filed incorporating additional cognizable and non-bailable offences, then in such circumstances, then what would be the correct legal position.
Regarding the above aspect, the Bench discussed the same in Pradeep Ram vs. State of Jharkhand and another reported in 2019 Crl. L.J. 3801.
However, the Apex Court ruled that,
“In such circumstances, correct approach of the Court concerned should be to apply its mind afresh as to whether the accused is entitled for grant of bail in the changed circumstances.”
With these observations, finally, the Bench had enumerated certain guidelines regarding the situation where, after the grant of bail to an accused, additional cognizable and non-bailable offences are incorporated.
Case: Sumit vs State of U P & Anr
Date of Order: 09.02.2026
See the Link: Sumit vs State of U P & Anr
