Court says anticipatory bail should not ordinarily be curtailed after charge-sheet and cognizance without special reasons; seeks explanation from trial judge over limited-duration relief.
The Allahabad High Court has taken serious note of an order by a trial court in Azamgarh that granted anticipatory bail to three accused persons for only 30 days, despite the filing of the charge-sheet and cognizance being taken by the court.
Justice Madan Pal Singh, hearing an application under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), observed that such a short-term grant of anticipatory bail, without any specific justification, could lead to unnecessary harassment of the accused and would require them to repeatedly approach the court for fresh relief.
The applicants, Suresh Yadav and others, had challenged the order dated 23 December 2025 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 1, Azamgarh, in an anticipatory bail application arising out of Case Crime No. 589 of 2024. The case involved allegations under Sections 110, 115(2), 352, 351(3) and 317(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
Counsel for the applicants argued that during the investigation they were never arrested, and they complied with the notice issued under Section 35(3) of BNSS. It was also pointed out that the maximum punishment for the alleged offences was below seven years. The applicants contended that once the trial court had allowed anticipatory bail after the charge-sheet had been filed and cognizance taken, there was no reason to restrict the relief to only 30 days. They relied on the Constitution Bench ruling in Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi), which held that anticipatory bail should ordinarily continue till the end of trial unless special reasons exist.
The High Court had earlier granted interim protection on 18 August 2026, noting that the trial court had not given any clear reason for limiting the bail period. The court also observed that requiring the accused to seek fresh bail after 30 days would amount to avoidable harassment.
After receiving an explanation from the trial judge, the High Court found it unsatisfactory. The court held that a court may either grant anticipatory bail till the conclusion of the trial subject to conditions, or reject the application depending on the gravity of the offence. However, if a limited-duration order is passed, the court must explain the peculiar facts and circumstances justifying such restriction.
In a pointed observation, the High Court directed the trial judge to submit a proper explanation on three issues: how often he had granted short-term bail in similar cases, what special circumstances justified limiting the protection to 30 days in the present matter, and what the accused were expected to do after the expiry of that period.
The High Court has listed the matter again for 30 September 2026 and ordered that the interim protection granted earlier will continue until then.
Bottom Line :
Anticipatory bail once granted after submission of charge-sheet and cognizance, ordinarily ought not to be restricted to a short period like 30 days without assigning specific reasons; grant of such limited anticipatory bail causes unnecessary harassment and requires proper justification in light of Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2020) 5 SCC 1.
Statutory provision(s): Section 528 BNSS, Section 35(3) BNSS, Sections 110, 115(2), 352, 351(3), 317(2) BNS
Suresh Yadav v. State of U.P., (Allahabad) : Law Finder Doc id # 2985229
