Anticipatory Bail Continues Until Trial’s End Despite Subsequent Filing of Charge-Sheet or Issuance of Summons

The petitioners were accused in Crime No. 115/2025 for offences under Sections 85 and 351(2) r/w 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNSS) and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act

All petitioners were previously granted anticipatory bail by a competent Court

Following the filing of the charge-sheet, the learned XXXVII Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (ACJM), Bengaluru, passed an order dated 08.06.2026, rejecting the petitioners' submission that their anticipatory bail remained valid and directing them to file for regular bail by the next hearing

The trial court subsequently passed a consequential order on 16.06.2026, granting a cost-bearing exemption from appearance but reiterating the requirement for regular bail and sureties

The petitioners challenged these orders before the High Court under Section 528 of the BNSS (Section 482 Cr.PC)

The court primarily relied on the Constitution Bench judgment in Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2020) 5 SCC 1, which established that anticipatory bail does not end at the stage of summoning or filing of a charge-sheet but continues until the end of the trial unless special circumstances exist

It further applied principles from Sumit v. State of U.P. (2026 SCC OnLine SC 186), affirming that there is no restriction in Section 438 Cr.P.C. (or equivalent BNSS provisions) to grant or continue anticipatory bail even after cognizance is taken

The court also noted Siddharth v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2022) 1 SCC 676, which held that Section 170 Cr.P.C. does not mandate the arrest of every accused at the time of filing a charge-sheet if the accused has been cooperating with the investigation

The High Court observed that the trial court’s direction was a "palpable illegality" and a "misapprehension of settled legal principles"

The Court reasoned that once a competent court exercises discretion to grant anticipatory bail, that protective umbrella is not eclipsed by procedural milestones like the filing of a charge-sheet

Justice M. Nagaprasanna noted that if an accused is on anticipatory bail and a charge-sheet is filed, it implies that the investigating agency did not require custody during the probe; therefore, requiring a surrender for regular bail is unnecessary harassment

The Court found that the ACJM’s order dated 08.06.2026 disregarded the binding precedent of the Supreme Court, which holds that the life of anticipatory bail continues through the trial unless specific breaches of conditions or supervening circumstances (such as the addition of graver offences) occur

The Court held that the anticipatory bail granted on 13.01.2026 remains in full force and shall endure throughout the trial, subject to the conditions originally imposed

The Registry was further directed to circulate the order to all concerned Courts to ensure compliance with the settled law that anticipatory bail is not terminated by the filing of a charge-sheet