LexSUMIT versus STATE OF U.P. & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[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 : 20
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.