Filing of chargesheet or taking cognizance does not bar the grant of anticipatory bail.

The petitioner, a law student, sought anticipatory bail regarding an FIR alleging sexual assault.

The incident purportedly occurred on November 19, 2025, during a celebration at the Arunachal Boys Hostel, Shillong.

The complainant alleged that after consuming alcohol, she retreated to a dark room to sleep and was sexually assaulted, identifying the perpetrator only by the sound of his voice the following morning.

The petitioner’s initial prayer for anticipatory bail was rejected by the Trial Court on December 8, 2025.

During the pendency of the current application before the High Court, the Investigating Officer filed a chargesheet stating there was prima facie evidence against the petitioner.

The petitioner admitted to sexual intercourse but contended it was consensual, which the victim denied.

1. Whether the filing of a chargesheet or the taking of cognizance by a court acts as a legal bar to the exercise of power to grant anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the CrPC.

2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail considering the gravity of the offense and the fact that the investigation is largely complete.

The Court primarily applied Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) regarding the grant of bail to persons apprehending arrest.

It relied heavily on the precedent set by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bharat Chaudhary and Anr v. State of Bihar (2003) 8 SCC 77, which clarified that the object of Section 438 is to prevent undue harassment through pre-trial arrest and that the filing of a chargesheet or the taking of cognizance does not prohibit a Court of Session, High Court, or the Supreme Court from granting anticipatory bail in appropriate cases.

The Court observed that while the allegations of sexual assault are serious, the primary stage of investigation appeared complete as the chargesheet had already been filed and evidence gathered for the Trial Court’s consideration.

Following the ratio in Bharat Chaudhary, the Court reasoned that the existence of a chargesheet is not an automatic impediment to granting relief under Section 438.

The Court balanced the gravity of the offense against the petitioner’s status as a student and the completion of custodial requirements for investigation.

It concluded that the petitioner should be allowed to face trial with a proper defense rather than remaining in pre-trial detention, provided strict conditions were imposed to ensure his presence and the safety of the victim.

The holding clarified that the filing of a chargesheet does not restrict the court's power to grant anticipatory bail.

The relief was granted subject to conditions: the petitioner must not tamper with evidence, must attend court proceedings, must not leave Meghalaya without permission, must avoid all contact with the victim, and must execute a personal bond of ₹30,000 with one surety.