An accused released on bail remains in constructive custody and cannot seek anticipatory bail.

The petitioner sought anticipatory bail in Gaura P.S. Case No. 54 of 2024, registered under Section 384 of the Indian Penal Code.

He had previously been granted anticipatory bail in that case by the High Court on 2 April 2025 and, pursuant to that order, surrendered before the court below and furnished bail bonds.

The earlier order permitted cancellation of his bond if he had knowingly concealed criminal antecedents.

After the petitioner’s omission of a pending complaint case was discovered, his bail bond was cancelled and a non-bailable warrant issued.

He challenged the cancellation in revision but withdrew that proceeding, and then filed the present anticipatory-bail petition.

He argued that the omission was inadvertent; the State and informant opposed the petition as not maintainable because he had already surrendered and been released on bail.

Whether an anticipatory-bail petition is maintainable where the petitioner had surrendered before the court and been released on bail in the same case, but his bail bond was later cancelled and a non-bailable warrant issued.

Whether the petitioner should be permitted to surrender and seek regular bail before the court below.

The Court applied the principle that a person released on bail remains under the constructive control of the court through the sureties or the conditions of the bond; accordingly, anticipatory bail is not available to a person already in such custody.

Relying on Niranjan Singh v. Prabhakar Rajaram Kharote, (1980) 2 SCC 559, the Court noted that custody for purposes of regular bail includes physical presence before the court coupled with submission to its jurisdiction and orders.

It also relied on Kanaksinh Mohansinh Mangrola v. State of Gujarat, (2006) 9 SCC 540, concerning the availability of regular bail to an accused who was on interim bail, and Sunita Devi v. State of Bihar, (2005) 1 SCC 608, on custody as a prerequisite to an application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

The Court further cited Manish Jain v. Haryana State Pollution Control Board, (2020) 20 SCC 123, for the proposition that a person already in constructive custody cannot claim an apprehension of arrest supporting anticipatory bail.

The petitioner had acted on the earlier anticipatory-bail order by surrendering before the court below and furnishing bail bonds.

Applying the cited authorities, the Court held that his release on bail left him in the constructive custody of the court through his sureties.

The subsequent cancellation of the bond and issuance of a warrant did not make an anticipatory-bail application maintainable while that constructive-custody principle applied.

The appropriate course was for the petitioner to surrender and seek regular bail.

It granted the petitioner liberty to surrender before the court below within two weeks and apply for regular bail, requesting that the court below consider the application on the day it is filed.