Dismissal of an SLP extinguishes interim protection, rendering consequential bail orders ineffective.

The prosecutrix alleged that the applicant developed a relationship with her, repeatedly had sexual intercourse with her on the promise of marriage, provided her accommodation, and thereafter refused to marry her and left without informing her.

Crime No. 101/2025 was registered at Police Station Manpur, Indore, under Sections 69 and 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (“BNS”).

The applicant’s applications for anticipatory bail before the Sessions Court and the High Court were rejected, the High Court noting the allegations, his criminal antecedents, alleged non-availability during investigation, and the possibility of influencing witnesses.

The Supreme Court subsequently granted interim protection from arrest during the pendency of the applicant’s Special Leave Petition (“SLP”).

After filing of the charge-sheet, the JMFC ordered the applicant’s release on bail.

The SLP was dismissed on 28 October 2025.

Thereafter, the Sessions Court issued a warrant of arrest, holding that the protection granted by the Supreme Court had ceased and that the JMFC’s order merely implemented that interim protection.

The applicant challenged the order dated 2 April 2026 under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS”).

The Court applied Section 528 of the BNSS, which preserves the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction to prevent abuse of process and secure the ends of justice.

Sections 482 and 72(2) of the BNSS in the procedural history concerning anticipatory bail and cancellation/recall of the warrant; and Sections 69 and 351(3) of the BNS, under which the criminal case was registered.

The Court held that an interim protection order granted by the Supreme Court during the pendency of an SLP cannot be claimed after dismissal of the SLP, unless the order expressly provides otherwise.

It further held that an order passed by the Magistrate merely to implement such interim protection does not survive once the underlying protection expires.

The earlier High Court order had also relied on *Pradeep Sharma v. State of M.P.*, (2014) 2 SCC 171, concerning the exceptional nature of anticipatory bail in the circumstances of that case.

The Supreme Court’s order dated 18 July 2025 protected the applicant only “in the event of arrest” while the SLP was pending.

Once the SLP challenging the rejection of anticipatory bail was dismissed on 28 October 2025, the interim protection came to an end and could no longer furnish a basis for the applicant’s continued liberty.

The High Court examined the JMFC’s order passed after filing of the charge-sheet and concluded that it was not an independent adjudication granting regular bail; rather, it merely gave effect to the Supreme Court’s interim order.

Therefore, expiry of the Supreme Court’s protection necessarily terminated the operative effect of the JMFC’s order.

The Sessions Court was consequently justified in issuing the warrant of arrest, and the applicant could not obtain through the present petition the same protection that had already been denied in the earlier proceedings and whose challenge had failed before the Supreme Court.

It held that the applicant could not claim the benefit of the Supreme Court’s interim protection after dismissal of the SLP, and that the JMFC’s order did not constitute an independent, continuing order of regular bail.

The warrant of arrest issued by the Sessions Court was therefore held justified.

The application under Section 528 of the BNSS was dismissed, and no relief was granted to the applicant.