Anticipatory Bail Cannot Be Time-Limited Till Chargesheet: Supreme Court Reaffirms Sushila Aggarwal and Siddharth

Held: The Supreme Court held that once anticipatory bail is granted upon consideration of the nature of allegations and the role of the accused, it cannot be arbitrarily restricted only till the filing of the chargesheet. Filing of a chargesheet, taking cognizance, or issuance of summons does not automatically terminate anticipatory bail unless specific reasons are recorded. The Court reiterated that protection under Section 438 CrPC ordinarily continues without fixed expiry, and time-bound anticipatory bail orders are unsustainable in law unless justified by special circumstances.

Summary: The appellant, accused in a case registered under Sections 80(2)/85 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, had initially been granted anticipatory bail by the Allahabad High Court, but the protection was restricted “till the filing of the police charge sheet.” Upon filing of the chargesheet, the protection ceased and a fresh anticipatory bail application was rejected. The Supreme Court found this approach legally flawed, observing that once the High Court had exercised discretion and found a case fit for anticipatory bail, there was no justification for limiting it to the investigation stage. Relying upon Bharat Chaudhary v. State of Bihar, Ravindra Saxena v. State of Rajasthan, the Constitution Bench judgment in Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi), Siddharth v. State of U.P., Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI, and Md. Asfak Alam v. State of Jharkhand, the Court reaffirmed that anticipatory bail does not automatically lapse upon filing of a chargesheet. The Court emphasized that personal liberty is a constitutional value, arrest is not mandatory upon filing of a chargesheet, and risk management can be addressed through conditions rather than arbitrary time limits. The Court also clarified the legal position where graver offences are added after grant of bail, summarizing the governing principles under Sections 437(5) and 439(2) CrPC in light of Pradeep Ram and Prahlad Singh Bhati.

Decision: The Supreme Court set aside the impugned order of the High Court rejecting anticipatory bail and directed that in the event of arrest, the appellant shall be released on anticipatory bail subject to conditions deemed fit by the Investigating Officer, and thereafter appear before the Trial Court to furnish fresh bail bonds. The appeal was disposed of, pending applications stood disposed of, and a copy of the order was directed to be forwarded to the Registrar General of the High Court of Allahabad.