Paragraph numbers below are the court’s original numbering, recovered from the source text.
23. Further, this Court in Satender Kumar Antil vs. CBI reported in (2022) 10 SCC 51 said in clear terms that the mandate laid down in Siddharth (supra) should be strictly complied with.
24. In Md. Asfak Alam vs. State of Jharkhand and Another reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 892 under a similar situation where the appellant therein had been granted interim protection by the High Court under Section 438 CrPC and the charge-sheet was filed before the application seeking pre-arrest bail was finally heard, the High Court rejected the pending anticipatory bail and directed the appellant to surrender before the competent authority and seek regular bail. In this backdrop, this Court observed as under: “14. ……What appears from the record is that the appellant cooperated with the investigation both before 8-8-2022, when no protection was granted to him and after 8-8-2022, when he enjoyed protection till the filing of the charge-sheet and the cognizance thereof on 1-10-2022. Thus, once the charge-sheet was filed and there was no impediment, at 100 least on the part of the accused, the court having regard to the nature of the offences, the allegations and the maximum sentence of the offences they were likely to carry, ought to have granted the bail as a matter of course. However, the court did not do so but mechanically rejected and, virtually, to rub salt in the wound directed the appellant to surrender and seek regular bail before the trial court. Therefore, in the opinion of this Court, the High Court fell into error in adopting such a casual approach. The impugned order of rejecting the bail and directing the appellant, to surrender and later seek bail, therefore, cannot stand, and is hereby set aside……” [Emphasis supplied]
25. 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 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.
26. Risk management can be taken care of by way of imposing conditions of cooperation, attendance, and non-tampering, not by imposing time limits. Where circumstances change, modification or cancellation may be sought under the BNSS, 2023, but expiry clauses inserted at inception are unsustainable.
27. In such circumstances referred to above, the impugned order passed by the High Court is set aside.
28. We order that in the event of arrest of the appellant in connection with the offence enumerated above, he shall be released on anticipatory bail subject to the terms and conditions that the Investigating Officer deem fit to impose.
29. Once the appellant is released by the Investigating Officer, he shall thereafter appear before the Trial Court and furnish fresh bail bond. [2026] 3 S.C.R. Sumit v. State of U.P. & Anr.
30. Before we close this matter, we would like to clarify something important. Take a case, wherein an accused has been released on bail, pending the investigation, and later upon completion of the investigation, chargesheet is filed with addition of new cognizable and non-bailable offences, then what would be the position?
31. The aforesaid question was looked into and answered by this Court in Pradeep Ram vs. State of Jharkhand and another reported in 2019 Crl. L.J. 3801, wherein this Court after discussing various decisions, more particularly, the decision in Prahlad Singh Bhati vs. NCT Delhi and another reported in (2001) 4 SCC 280 held that with the addition of a new cognizable and non-bailable offence more particularly of a serious nature, the accused becomes disentitled to the liberty earlier granted to him in relation to the offences for which the FIR came to be registered.
32. In such circumstances, the 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.
33. In Prahlad Singh Bhati (supra), the FIR initially was registered under Sections 306 and 498A of the IPC respectively. But, subsequently, the chargesheet showed that the accused had committed offence under Sections 302 of the IPC. This Court took the view that with the change of the nature of the offence, the accused could be said to have become disentitled to the liberty granted to him in relation to the offence for which the FIR was registered, more particularly, if the offence is altered for an aggravated crime.
34. In such circumstances referred to above, we arrive at following conclusions in respect of a circumstance whereafter the grant of bail to an accused, further cognizable and non-bailable offences are added:- (i) The accused can surrender and apply for bail for newly added cognizable and non-bailable offences. In the event of refusal of bail, the accused can certainly be arrested. (ii) The investigating agency can seek order from the court under Sections 437(5) or 439(2) of Cr.P.C. respectively for arrest of the accused and his custody. (iii) The Court, in exercise of its power under Sections 437(5) or 439(2) of Cr.P.C. respectively, can direct for taking into custody 102 the accused who has already been granted bail after cancellation of his bail. The Court in exercise of its power under Section 437(5) as well as Section 439(2) respectively can direct the person who has already been granted bail to be arrested and commit him to custody on addition of graver and non-cognizable offences which may not be necessary always with order of cancelling of earlier bail. (iv) In a case where an accused has already been granted bail, the investigating authority on addition of an offence or offences may not proceed to arrest the accused, but for arresting the accused on such addition of offence or offences it needs to obtain an order to arrest the accused from the Court which had granted the bail.
35. The appeal is accordingly, disposed of.
36. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.
37. Registry shall forward a copy of this order to the Registrar General, High court of Allahabad, who in turn shall place this order before Hon’ble the Chief Justice of High Court. Result of the case: Appeal disposed of. †Headnotes prepared by: Ankit Gyan