Supreme Court Sets Aside Time-Bound Anticipatory Bail: Reaffirms That Protection Cannot Expire Automatically on Filing of Charge Sheet

Lentis Legalis
New Delhi | 9 February 2026

In a significant ruling clarifying the law on anticipatory bail, the Supreme Court of India held that once anticipatory bail is granted, it ordinarily cannot be restricted till the filing of the charge sheet, unless exceptional circumstances are recorded. The Court set aside an order of the High Court of Allahabad which had denied continued protection to an accused after completion of investigation.

The judgment was delivered by a Division Bench comprising Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K.V. Viswanathan in Criminal Appeal arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 1536 of 2026, titled Sumit v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.

The appellant, Sumit, is the brother-in-law (devar) of a deceased woman who had been married to the appellant’s brother for about seven months prior to her death.

• The deceased died under mysterious circumstances at her matrimonial home.
• An FIR bearing No. 560/2024 was registered at Akbarpur Police Station, Kanpur Dehat, under:
  • Sections 80(2) / 85 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS)
  • Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961
• The FIR was lodged by the mother of the deceased, alleging dowry-related harassment and death.

Apprehending arrest, the appellant initially approached the Allahabad High Court seeking anticipatory bail.

Proceedings Before the High Court

First Anticipatory Bail Order

In Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application No. 3992/2025, the High Court granted anticipatory bail to the appellant. However, the relief was restricted only till the filing of the police charge sheet.

The High Court:

• Accepted that there were no specific allegations against the appellant.
• Noted that he was implicated largely due to his relationship as a brother-in-law.
• Observed that he had no criminal antecedents.
• Still imposed a time-bound limitation, terminating protection once the investigation concluded.

Second Anticipatory Bail Application

After the charge sheet was filed, the appellant again sought anticipatory bail. This time, the High Court rejected the application without identifying any new aggravating circumstance or change in the factual matrix.

This rejection led to the present appeal before the Supreme Court.

Issues Before the Supreme Court

1. Whether anticipatory bail can be restricted till the filing of the charge sheet as a matter of routine?
2. Whether filing of a charge sheet automatically extinguishes the protection of anticipatory bail?
3. Whether the High Court was justified in rejecting the second anticipatory bail application without recording special reasons?

Supreme Court’s Analysis and Discussion

The Supreme Court expressed strong disapproval of the practice of granting time-bound anticipatory bail orders.

No Rationale for Automatic Expiry

The Bench observed:

• Once a court, after considering the nature of allegations, role of the accused, and overall facts, exercises discretion in favour of the accused, there must be strong and special reasons to subsequently deny protection.
• Merely because the charge sheet is filed, the anticipatory bail does not automatically lapse.

The Court questioned the logic behind such restrictions, noting:

“Either the Court grants anticipatory bail or declines it. Having granted it after due consideration, there was no justification to limit it till the filing of the charge sheet.”

Reliance on Constitution Bench Precedent

The Bench reaffirmed the law laid down in Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi), holding that:

• Anticipatory bail need not have a fixed expiry period.
• Duration of bail is a matter of judicial discretion, not procedural milestones.
• Arbitrary timelines undermine personal liberty.

The Court also relied upon Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra (2011) 1 SCC 694, reiterating that:

• Anticipatory bail should not hinge upon investigation stages like filing of charge sheet or taking cognizance.

Conditions, Not Time Limits, Are the Safeguard

Addressing concerns of misuse, the Court clarified that:

• Risks can be mitigated through conditions of cooperation, attendance, and non-tampering of evidence.
• If circumstances change, the prosecution is always at liberty to seek cancellation or modification of bail under law.
• However, expiry clauses at inception are legally unsustainable.

Clarification on Addition of Graver Offences

Before concluding, the Court addressed an important legal scenario:
What happens if new, serious non-bailable offences are added after bail is granted?

Relying on Pradeep Ram v. State of Jharkhand (2019) and Prahlad Singh Bhati v. NCT of Delhi (2001), the Court held:

• Addition of graver cognizable and non-bailable offences may disentitle the accused from earlier bail.
• In such cases:
  • Courts must apply their mind afresh.
  • Investigating agencies may seek custody through appropriate judicial orders.
  • Arrest cannot be mechanical and must follow judicial authorization.

Allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court:

• Set aside the impugned order of the Allahabad High Court rejecting anticipatory bail.
• Directed that In the event of arrest, the appellant shall be released on anticipatory bail, subject to conditions imposed by the Investigating Officer. The appellant shall thereafter appear before the Trial Court and furnish fresh bail bonds. Directed the Registry to forward a copy of the judgment to the Registrar General of the Allahabad High Court for placement before the Hon’ble Chief Justice.

Click Below to read the Judgment
https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2026/3119/3119_2026_5_32_68496_Judgement_09-Feb-2026.pdf