Case Note & Summary
This criminal petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) was filed by three accused persons challenging orders of the XXXVII Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru, which directed them to apply for regular bail despite the subsistence of an anticipatory bail order. The background involved a crime registered against the petitioners for offences under Sections 85, 351(2), and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The petitioners were granted anticipatory bail by the LXXI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru. After investigation, the police filed a charge-sheet, and the trial court took cognizance. On 8 June 2026, the trial court, ignoring the existing anticipatory bail, directed the petitioners to file a regular bail application by the next date of hearing. The petitioners’ counsel contended that no regular bail was necessary as per settled law, but the court rejected the submission. On 16 June 2026, while allowing an application for exemption from personal appearance with costs, the trial court reiterated that the petitioners had not secured regular bail or furnished sureties and directed their presence on the next date. Aggrieved, the petitioners invoked the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction to quash those orders. The core legal issue was whether the trial court could compel an accused already on anticipatory bail to seek regular bail merely upon filing of the charge-sheet. The High Court, after hearing counsel, held that the impugned orders were patently illegal and demonstrated a misapprehension of settled legal principles. Relying on the Constitution Bench decision in Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2020) 5 SCC 1, the court reiterated that the filing of a charge-sheet, taking of cognizance, or issuance of summons does not terminate an anticipatory bail order. The Supreme Court had clarified that the mere subsequent event of filing a charge-sheet cannot compel the accused to surrender and seek regular bail. Accordingly, the High Court allowed the petition, set aside the orders dated 8 June 2026 and 16 June 2026, and held that the petitioners shall continue to enjoy the protection of the anticipatory bail granted earlier. The judgment firmly established that the direction to apply for regular bail was contrary to law and unsustainable.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Anticipatory Bail - Validity After Charge-Sheet - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Section 438 (now Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, Section 482) - The petitioners were on anticipatory bail in Crime No.115/2025; subsequently, the trial court directed them to apply for regular bail upon filing of charge-sheet. The High Court, relying on Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi), held that the filing of a charge-sheet does not terminate anticipatory bail and the accused need not seek regular bail. Consequently, the impugned orders were set aside. Held, the direction to apply for regular bail was illegal and contrary to settled law. (Paras 4-7)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court’s direction to the petitioners to apply for regular bail, despite the subsistence of an order granting anticipatory bail, is legally sustainable?
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the petition, quashed the orders dated 08.06.2026 and 16.06.2026, and held that the petitioners shall continue to enjoy the benefit of the anticipatory bail granted earlier. All proceedings pursuant to the impugned orders were set aside.
Law Points
- anticipatory bail does not terminate upon filing of charge-sheet
- accused on anticipatory bail is not required to seek regular bail
- protection under Section 438 CrPC (now Section 482 BNSS) continues
- normal rule is not to limit the operation of anticipatory bail in relation to time
