Sumit Vs State of U P & Anr. (Supreme Court of India)
Summary: The Supreme Court considered whether anticipatory bail, once granted after considering the nature of allegations and the accused’s role, could be restricted only until filing of the chargesheet. The appellant, brother-in-law of a woman whose death at her matrimonial home led to FIR No.560/2024 under Sections 80(2)/85 BNS and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, had initially received anticipatory bail from the Allahabad High Court, but only until filing of the police chargesheet. After the chargesheet was filed, his fresh anticipatory bail application was rejected.
The Supreme Court held that there was no good reason for restricting the earlier protection merely to completion of investigation and filing of the chargesheet. Reviewing the law including Bharat Chaudhary, Ravindra Saxena, Sushila Aggarwal, Siddharth, Satender Kumar Antil and Md. Asfak Alam, the Court held that anticipatory bail ordinarily continues without a fixed expiry and does not terminate merely because a chargesheet is filed, cognizance is taken or summons is issued, unless special reasons justify limiting its tenure. Risk can instead be addressed through appropriate conditions.
The impugned High Court order was set aside and the appellant was directed to be released on anticipatory bail in the event of arrest, subject to conditions imposed by the Investigating Officer. The Court separately clarified that where new cognizable and non-bailable offences, particularly graver offences, are subsequently added, the question of bail must be considered afresh in accordance with the principles stated in Pradeep Ram. :chatgpt-content-reference{index=”0″}
