Supreme Court Refines Anticipatory Bail: Protection Continues, Re-Arrest Needs Court Order, Parity Denied to Absconders

Overview

• Setting aside an Allahabad High Court order in Sumit v. State of UP, the Court reaffirmed that anticipatory bail ordinarily does not lapse on filing of a chargesheet unless special reasons are recorded.
• In the same judgment, the bench held that investigators cannot automatically re-arrest an accused already on bail when new cognizable, non-bailable offences are added, and must first obtain an order from the court that granted bail.
• The Court laid out a procedural roadmap for added offences, including voluntary surrender with a fresh bail plea or agency motions under Sections 437(5) or 439(2) CrPC for custody after judicial reconsideration.
• Citing Sushila Aggarwal and other precedents, the judges stressed that risk management should occur through conditions or cancellation for cause rather than expiry clauses tied to the chargesheet stage.
• In Balmukund Singh Gautam v. State of Madhya Pradesh, a bench set aside anticipatory bail granted to an absconder of about six years, directed surrender within four weeks, and clarified that parity with acquitted co‑accused cannot ordinarily aid fugitives, save in rare cases where no prima facie case exists.