SUMITversusSTATE OF U.P. & ANR.

                  [2026] 3 S.C.R. 87 : 2026 INSC 145

                                   Sumit
                                     v.
                            State of U.P. & Anr.
                     (Criminal Appeal No. 830 of 2026)
                               09 February 2026
           [J.B. Pardiwala* and K.V. Viswanathan,* JJ.]


                            Issue for Consideration
       Whether the High Court was well within its reasons to grant the
       anticipatory bail by restricting it upto the stage of filing of the
       chargesheet; What will be the position, when 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.

                                   Headnotes†
       Bail – Rejection of Anticipatory Bail – Dowry death – An FIR
       was registered u/s.80(2)/85 BNS and ss.3 and 4 respectively
       of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 – The appellant/brother-
       in-law of the deceased, apprehending arrest applied for
       anticipatory bail – High Court granted anticipatory bail but
       it was limited only upto filing of the chargesheet – Once the
       chargesheet was filed, the protection earlier granted came to
       an end – Appellant again prayed for anticipatory bail by way
       of a fresh application – High Court rejected the application –
       Correctness:
       Held: Either the Court may grant anticipatory bail or may decline –
       However, once having exercised its discretion in favour of the
       accused upon consideration of the overall matter, there was no
       good reason for the High Court to restrict it upto the stage of
       filing of the chargesheet – 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 – Risk management can be taken care of



* Author
88                                                           [2026] 3 S.C.R.

                          Supreme Court Reports


      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 – Impugned order passed by the High Court is set
      aside – The appellant is directed to be released on anticipatory
      bail subject to the terms and conditions that the Investigating
      Officer deem fit to impose. [Paras 13, 25-28]

      Bail – A circumstance whereafter the grant of bail to an
      accused, further cognizable and non bailable offences are
      added – Position of law:
      Held: 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 u/ss.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 u/ss.437(5) or
      439(2) of Cr.P.C. respectively, can direct for taking into custody
      the accused who has already been granted bail after cancellation
      of his bail – The Court in exercise of its power u/s.437(5) as well
      as s.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.
      [Para 34]

                              Case Law Cited
      Shri Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia and Others v. State of Punjab
      [1980] 3 SCR 383 : (1980) 2 SCC 565; Sushila Aggarwal &
      Ors. v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr. [2020] 2 SCR 1 : (2020) 5
      SCC 1 – followed.
      Prahlad Singh Bhati v. NCT Delhi and Another [2001] 2 SCR 684 :
      (2001) 4 SCC 280 – relied on.
[2026] 3 S.C.R.                                                              89

                        Sumit v. State of U.P. & Anr.


     Bharat Chaudhary and Anr. v. State of Bihar and Anr. (2003) 8
     SCC 77; Ravindra Saxena v. State of Rajasthan [2009] 16 SCR
     433 : (2010) 1 SCC 684; Siddharth v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.
     (2022) 1 SCC 676; Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI [2022] 10 SCR
     351 : (2022) 10 SCC 51; Md. Asfak Alam v. State of Jharkhand
     and Another [2023] 10 SCR 1184 : 2023 SCC OnLine SC 892;
     Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra [2010] 15
     SCR 201 : (2011) 1 SCC 694; Pradeep Ram v. State of Jharkhand
     and Another [2019] 8 SCR 824 : 2019 Crl. L.J. 3801 – referred to.
     High Court of Delhi v. CBI, 2004 SCC OnLine Del 53 – referred to.

                                 List of Acts
     Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961; Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023; Code
     of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

                              List of Keywords
     Bail; Anticipatory Bail; Dowry death; Personal liberty; Filing of
     chargesheet; Anticipatory bail limited upto filing of the chargesheet;
     Surrender; Addition of new cognizable and non-bailable offences;
     Arrest; Cancellation of bail; Addition of an offence; Risk management;
     Arbitrary timelines; Judicial discretion; Investigation.

                             Case Arising From
     CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
     830 of 2026
     From the Judgment and Order dated 07.01.2026 of the High Court
     of Judicature at Allahabad in CRMABAU482BNSS No. 11038
     of 2025

                         Appearances for Parties
     Advs. for the Appellant(s):
     Shiv Sagar Tiwari, Varinder Kumar Sharma, Mata Prasad Singh,
     R.D. Rathore, Vinay Rajput, Ms. Ashiya Bano, Ms. Aakansha Tiwari,
     Ms. Shweta Bhadauria, Yugal Kishor Prasad, Bikash Chandra,
     Bishan Dass, Ms. Gitesh Kumari, Rajesh Ranjan Kumar, Rajesh
     Kumar.
     Advs. for the Respondent(s):
     Ankit Goel, Mayank Tiwari.
90                                                         [2026] 3 S.C.R.

                         Supreme Court Reports


                Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

                                   Order

      J.B. Pardiwala & K.V. Viswanathan, JJ.

1.    Leave granted.
2.    This appeal arises from the order passed by the High Court of
      Allahabad dated 07.01.2026 in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail
      Application No.11038/2025 by which the anticipatory bail application
      preferred by the appellant came to be rejected.
3.    We heard Mr. Varinder Kumar Sharma, the learned counsel appearing
      for the appellant and Mr. Ankit Goel, the learned counsel appearing
      for the respondent-State.
4.    It appears from the materials on record that the First Information
      Report bearing No.560/2024 came to be registered with the Akbarpur
      Police Station, District Kanpur Dehat, State of Uttar Pradesh for the
      offence punishable under Section 80(2)/85 BNS and Sections 3 and
      4 respectively of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
5.    The appellant before us is the brother-in-law (devar) of the deceased.
6.    The deceased was married to the brother of the appellant past 7
      months.
7.    The deceased died under mysterious circumstances at her
      matrimonial home. Accordingly, the FIR came to be lodged by the
      mother of the deceased.
8.    The case at hand as alleged seems to be one of dowry death.
9.    The appellant before us apprehending arrest had earlier preferred
      an application before the High Court seeking anticipatory bail being
      application no.3992/2025.
10. The High Court while granting anticipatory bail passed a very unusual
    order which reads thus:-
           “(1) The present Criminal Miscellaneous Anticipatory
           Bail Application has been filed on behalf of the applicant
           Sumit in FIR No. 560 of 2024, under Section 85/80 BNS
           and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Akbarpur,
[2026] 3 S.C.R.                                                            91

                       Sumit v. State of U.P. & Anr.


           District Kanpur Dehat, seeking anticipatory bail with
           the prayer that in case of arrest, the applicant may be
           released on bail.
           (2) Heard the learned counsel for the applicant and the
           learned Additional Government Advocate and perused
           the file.
           (3) The applicant’s learned counsel argued that the
           applicant is innocent and has been implicated in the
           aforementioned sections with malicious intent to harass
           and intimidate him. He fears that he may be arrested in
           the aforementioned case, despite the lack of credible
           evidence against him. The applicant has been accused
           of the crime simply because he is her brother-in-law. The
           First Information Report contains no direct allegations
           against the applicant. The deceased was allegedly beaten
           and strangled on October 21, 2024, but no complaint was
           filed at any police station, nor was a medical examination
           conducted. The deceased committed suicide after staying
           at her parents’ home for a month. He also stated that
           the applicant has no criminal history and no coercive
           proceedings have yet been initiated against him. He further
           states that the applicant undertakes to cooperate during
           the trial and investigation and that he will be present at the
           time required by the investigating agency or the Court and
           it is assured on behalf of the applicant that he is ready to
           cooperate in the process of law and he will honestly make
           himself available before the Court as and when required
           and he is also ready to accept all the conditions which
           the Court may impose on him.
           (4) The learned Additional Government Advocate argued
           against the accused anticipatory bail, arguing that the
           offense committed by the applicant is of a serious nature.
           Considering the facts and circumstances of the case,
           there is no sufficient basis for the accused release on
           anticipatory bail. Therefore, the accused should not be
           released on anticipatory bail.
           (5) It may be stated that in the case of Siddharam
           Satlingappa Mhetre vs. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 1
92                                                       [2026] 3 S.C.R.

                     Supreme Court Reports


      SCC 694, it has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme court
      that while adjudicating on an anticipatory bail application,
      the Court must consider the nature and gravity of the
      charges, the possibility of the accused fleeing the judicial
      process and that the Court must carefully evaluate all the
      material available against the accused and also consider
      the actual role of the accused.
      (6) In the present case, having regard to the settled
      principles of law relating to anticipatory bail and having
      regard to the submissions of learned counsel for the parties,
      the nature of the allegations, the role of the applicant and
      all the facts and circumstances of the case, the prayer for
      anticipatory bail is liable to be allowed without any further
      consideration of the merits of the case. Accordingly, the
      anticipatory bail application is allowed.
      (7) In case of arrest of the applicant involved in the above
      case crime number, he will be released on anticipatory
      bail (till the filing of the police charge sheet) on furnishing
      a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- and two sureties of the
      same amount to the satisfaction of the officer in charge
      of the concerned police station, subject to the following
      conditions:-
           1. The applicant shall, if required, be present at the
           required time for examination by the police officer.
           2. The applicant shall not make any threat, promise
           or inducement, directly or indirectly, to any person
           acquainted with the facts of the case, or to any police
           officer to agree not to disclose such facts before the
           Court or to any police officer.
           3. The applicant will cooperate during the investigation
           and trial and will not misuse the freedom of bail. In case
           of violation of the above conditions, the Investigating
           Officer/Prosecutor shall issue notice to the applicant
           shall be at liberty to file an appropriate application for
           cancellation of the anticipatory ball granted.
      (8) Accordingly, this anticipatory bail application is finally
      disposed of with the above observations.
[2026] 3 S.C.R.                                                        93

                       Sumit v. State of U.P. & Anr.


11. 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.
12. 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.
13. Either the Court may grant anticipatory bail or may decline. However,
    once having exercised its discretion in favour of the accused upon
    consideration of the overall matter, there was no good reason for the
    High Court to restrict it upto the stage of filing of the chargesheet.
14. In the earlier order passed by the High Court referred to above in
    para 10 the High Court observed that having regard to the nature
    of the allegations, the role of the applicant and all the facts and
    circumstances of the case, the accused could be said to have made
    out a case for grant of anticipatory bail.
15. If the aforesaid be so, then the High Court should have indicated
    while declining to grant anticipatory bail by way of the impugned
    order as to what was so particular or what was so gross that the
    High Court thought fit not to grant anticipatory bail.

     POSITION OF LAW
16. In Bharat Chaudhary and Anr. vs. State of Bihar and Anr. reported in
    (2003)8 SCC 77, this Court 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. The relevant part of the said
    decision reads as thus:-
           “7. From the perusal of this part of Section 438 of CrPC,
           we find no restriction in regard to exercise of this power
           in a suitable case either by the Court of Session, High
           Court or this Court even when cognizance is taken or
           a charge-sheet is filed. The object of Section 438 is to
           prevent undue harassment of the accused persons by
           pre-trial arrest and detention. The fact, that a court has
94                                                            [2026] 3 S.C.R.

                         Supreme Court Reports


          either taken cognizance of the complaint or the investigating
          agency has filed a charge-sheet, would not by itself, in
          our opinion, prevent the courts concerned from granting
          anticipatory bail in appropriate cases. The gravity of the
          offence is an important factor to be taken into consideration
          while granting such anticipatory bail so also the need for
          custodial interrogation, but these are only factors that must
          be borne in mind by the courts concerned while entertaining
          a petition for grant of anticipatory bail and the fact of taking
          cognizance or filing of a charge-sheet cannot by itself be
          construed as a prohibition against the grant of anticipatory
          bail. In our opinion, the courts i.e. the Court of Session,
          High Court or this Court has the necessary power vested
          in them to grant anticipatory bail in non-bailable offences
          under Section 438 of CrPC even when cognizance is
          taken or a charge-sheet is filed provided the facts of the
          case require the court to do so.”...
                                                   [Emphasis supplied]

17. The very same view as aforesaid came to be reiterated in Ravindra
    Saxena vs. State of Rajasthan, reported in (2010) 1 SCC 684. In
    the said case the High Court had rejected the application seeking
    anticipatory bail on the ground that the chargesheet had been filed,
    such approach was held to be erroneous. The Court observed that
    a Constitution Bench in Shri Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia and Others vs.
    State of Punjab, reported in (1980) 2 SCC 565, clearly held that the
    anticipatory bail can be granted at any time so long as the applicant
    has not been arrested:
          “7. We are of the considered opinion that the approach
          adopted by the High Court is wholly erroneous. The
          application for anticipatory bail has been rejected without
          considering the case of the appellant solely on the ground
          that the challan has now been presented.
          8. We may notice here that the provision with regard
          to the grant of anticipatory bail was introduced on the
          recommendations of the Law Commission of India in its
          Forty-first Report dated 24-9- 1969. The recommendations
          were considered by this Court in a Constitution Bench
[2026] 3 S.C.R.                                                            95

                       Sumit v. State of U.P. & Anr.


           decision in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab
           [(1980) 2 SCC 565 : 1980 SCC (Cri) 465]. Upon
           consideration of the entire issue this Court laid down certain
           salutary principles to be followed in exercise of the power
           under Section 438 CrPC by the Sessions Court and the
           High Court. It is clearly held that the anticipatory bail can
           be granted at any time so long as the applicant has not
           been arrested. When the application is made to the High
           Court or the Court of Session it must apply its own mind
           on the question and decide when the case is made out
           for granting such relief.”
                                                  [Emphasis supplied]

18. In Sushila Aggarwal & Ors. vs. State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr. reported
    in (2020) 5 SCC 1, the following questions were referred to the larger
    Bench of five judges:
     i.    Whether the protection granted to a person under Section 438
           CrPC should be limited to a fixed period so as to enable the
           person to surrender before the trial court and seek regular bail?
     ii.   Whether the life of an anticipatory bail should end at the time
           and stage when the accused is summoned by the court?
19. The Constitution Bench answered the reference as under:
           “ 91.1. Regarding Question 1, this Court holds that 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. Normal conditions under Section 437(3) read with
           Section 438(2) should be imposed; if there are specific
           facts or features in regard to any offence, it is open for
           the court to impose any appropriate condition (including
           fixed nature of relief, or its being tied to an event), etc.
           91.2. As regards the second question referred to this
           Court, it is held that the life or duration of an anticipatory
           bail order does not end normally at the time and stage
           when the accused is summoned by the court, or when
           charges are framed, but can continue till the end of the
96                                                           [2026] 3 S.C.R.

                        Supreme Court Reports


         trial. Again, if there are any special or peculiar features
         necessitating the court to limit the tenure of anticipatory
         bail, it is open for it to do so.”
                                                  [Emphasis supplied]

20. The following observations made by the Constitution Bench in paras
    77.3 and 77.4 respectively of Sushila Aggarwal (supra) are also
    relevant which reads as under:
         “77.3. In these circumstances, the mere fact that an
         accused is given relief under Section 438 at one stage, per
         se does not mean that upon the filing of a charge-sheet,
         he is necessarily to surrender or/and apply for regular bail.
         The analogy to “deemed bail” under Section 167(2) with
         anticipatory bail leads this Court to conclude that the mere
         subsequent event of the filing of a charge-sheet cannot
         compel the accused to surrender and seek regular bail. As
         a matter of fact, interestingly, if indeed, if a charge-sheet is
         filed where the accused is on anticipatory bail, the normal
         implication would be that there was no occasion for the
         investigating agency or the police to require his custody,
         because there would have been nothing in his behaviour
         requiring such a step. In other words, an accused, who
         is granted anticipatory bail would continue to be at liberty
         when the charge-sheet is filed, the natural implication is
         that there is no occasion for a direction by the court that
         he be arrested and further that he had cooperated with
         the investigation.
         77.4. At the same time, however, at any time during
         the investigation were any occasion to arise calling
         for intervention of the court for infraction of any of the
         conditions imposed under Section 437(3) read with Section
         438(2) or the violation of any other condition imposed in
         the given facts of a case, recourse can always be had
         under Section 439(2).”
                                                  [Emphasis supplied]

21. In the High Court of Delhi vs. CBI reported in 2004 SCC OnLine Del
    53, somewhat similar question arose whether Section 170 Cr.P.C.
[2026] 3 S.C.R.                                                           97

                       Sumit v. State of U.P. & Anr.


     prevents the Trial Court from taking a charge-sheet on record unless
     the accused is taken into custody. The Delhi High Court observed
     as under:
           “15. Word “custody” appearing in this section does not
           contemplate either police or judicial custody. It merely
           connotes the presentation of accused by the investigating
           officer before the Court at the time of filing of the charge-
           sheet whereafter the role of the Court starts. Had it not
           been so the investigating officer would not have been
           vested with powers to release a person on bail in a bailable
           offence after finding that there was sufficient evidence to
           put the accused on trial and it would have been obligatory
           upon him to produce such an accused in custody before
           the Magistrate for being released on bail by the Court.
           16. In case the police/investigating officer thinks it
           unnecessary to present the accused in custody for the
           reason that the accused would neither abscond nor would
           disobey the summons as he has been cooperating in
           investigation and investigation can be completed without
           arresting him, the IO is not obliged to produce such an
           accused in custody.
                              xxxx xxxx xxxx
           19. It appears that the learned Special Judge was labouring
           under a misconception that in every non-bailable and
           cognizable offence the police is required to invariably
           arrest a person, even if it is not essential for the purpose
           of investigation.
           20. Rather the law is otherwise. In normal and ordinary
           course the police should always avoid arresting a person
           and sending him to jail, if it is possible for the police to
           complete the investigation without his arrest and if every
           kind of cooperation is provided by the accused to the
           investigating officer in completing the investigation. It is
           only in cases of utmost necessity, where the investigation
           cannot be completed without arresting the person, for
           instance, a person may be required for recovery of
           incriminating articles or weapon of offence or for eliciting
98                                                          [2026] 3 S.C.R.

                         Supreme Court Reports


          some information or clue as to his accomplices or any
          circumstantial evidence, that his arrest may be necessary.
          Such an arrest may also be necessary if the investigating
          officer concerned or officer in charge of the police station
          thinks that presence of the accused will be difficult to
          procure because of grave and serious nature of crime as
          the possibility of his absconding or disobeying the process
          or fleeing from justice cannot be ruled out.”
                                                 [Emphasis supplied]

22. The aforesaid decision of the Delhi High Court received imprimatur
    of this Court in Siddharth vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr., reported
    in (2022) 1 SCC 676, wherein it was observed as under:
          “9. We are in agreement with the aforesaid view of the High
          Courts and would like to give our imprimatur to the said
          judicial view. It has rightly been observed on consideration
          of Section 170 CrPC that it does not impose an obligation
          on the officer-in-charge to arrest each and every accused
          at the time of filing of the charge-sheet. We have, in fact,
          come across cases where the accused has cooperated
          with the investigation throughout and yet on the charge-
          sheet being filed nonbailable warrants have been issued
          for his production premised on the requirement that there
          is an obligation to arrest the accused and produce him
          before the court. We are of the view that if the investigating
          officer does not believe that the accused will abscond or
          disobey summons he/she is not required to be produced
          in custody. The word “custody” appearing in Section 170
          CrPC does not contemplate either police or judicial custody
          but it merely connotes the presentation of the accused by
          the investigating officer before the court while filing the
          chargesheet.
          10. We may note that personal liberty is an important
          aspect of our constitutional mandate. The occasion to arrest
          an accused during investigation arises when custodial
          investigation becomes necessary or it is a heinous crime
          or where there is a possibility of influencing the witnesses
          or accused may abscond. Merely because an arrest can
[2026] 3 S.C.R.                                                            99

                       Sumit v. State of U.P. & Anr.


           be made because it is lawful does not mandate that arrest
           must be made. A distinction must be made between the
           existence of the power to arrest and the justification for
           exercise of it [Joginder Kumar v. State of U.P., (1994) 4
           SCC 260 : 1994 SCC (Cri) 1172] . If arrest is made routine,
           it can cause incalculable harm to the reputation and self-
           esteem of a person. If the investigating officer has no
           reason to believe that the accused will abscond or disobey
           summons and has, in fact, throughout cooperated with the
           investigation we fail to appreciate why there should be a
           compulsion on the officer to arrest the accused.
                               xxxx xxxx xxxx
           12. In the present case when the appellant has joined
           the investigation, investigation has completed and he has
           been roped in after seven years of registration of the FIR
           we can think of no reason why at this stage he must be
           arrested before the chargesheet is taken on record. We
           may note that the learned counsel for the appellant has
           already stated before us that on summons being issued
           the appellant will put the appearance before the trial court.”
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                                                        [2026] 3 S.C.R.

                         Supreme Court Reports


          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.                                                         101

                        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                                                           [2026] 3 S.C.R.

                              Supreme Court Reports


               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