The Allahabad High Court has reaffirmed that anticipatory bail is not inherently time-limited and may extend until the conclusion of trial, even after the filing of a charge sheet, provided the accused’s conduct and the nature of the case justify it. This ruling reinforces the Supreme Court’s definitive stance in Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) and offers critical clarity for practitioners handling non-bailable offences under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The applicants - Rajeev Rathore, Rajat Rathore, and Vijay Rathore - are accused in Case Crime No. 325 of 2024 under Sections 191(2), 115(2), 333, 352, 351(3), 74, 76, and 117(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNS), registered at Police Station Ramchandra Mission, District Shahjahanpur. The applicants claim they have been falsely implicated due to ulterior motives, with no credible evidence linking them to any offence.
Key Facts
- The alleged offences pertain to fabrication of evidence, intimidation, and unlawful assembly under the BNS
- No victim is reported to have sustained any injury to a vital organ or life-threatening wound
- The charge sheet in the case was filed on 23.11.2024 against the applicants and other co-accused
- Two co-accused, Ram Chandra and Smt. Chhaya Devi, were granted anticipatory bail by a coordinate Bench of this Court on 24.11.2025 in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application No. 9459 of 2025
- The applicants assert they have no history of criminal conduct and pose no risk of fleeing or tampering with evidence
Procedural History
- 23.11.2024: Charge sheet filed by police in Crime No. 325 of 2024
- 2026: Anticipatory bail application filed under Section 482 BNSS before the Allahabad High Court
- 27.05.2026: Hearing conducted before Hon’ble Justice Jai Prakash Tiwari
The Parties' Positions
For the Applicants
- Assert innocence and claim false implication
- Argue that allegations are general and omnibus, lacking specific factual basis
- Highlight absence of serious injuries or life-threatening harm
- Point to grant of anticipatory bail to co-accused as persuasive precedent
- Undertake to cooperate with investigation and trial
- Assert no risk of influencing witnesses or fleeing justice
For the Respondent/State
- Opposed the grant of anticipatory bail without presenting specific grounds or evidence of flight risk or tampering
- Did not dispute the grant of bail to co-accused or challenge the applicants’ conduct
Relief Sought
The applicants sought anticipatory bail until the conclusion of trial, with conditions to ensure cooperation and prevent abuse of liberty.
The Legal Issue
Can anticipatory bail, once granted, continue beyond the filing of the charge sheet and until the conclusion of trial under Section 482 BNSS, in light of the Supreme Court’s ruling in Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi)?
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant/Petitioner
The applicants relied on Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) to argue that anticipatory bail is not confined to a fixed period and may extend until trial, particularly where the accused is not a flight risk and the allegations lack gravity. They emphasized that the charge sheet had already been filed, indicating the investigation was complete, and that co-accused had already been granted similar relief. They submitted that the absence of serious injuries and the lack of specific allegations against them warranted protection from arbitrary arrest.
For the Respondent/State
The Additional Government Advocate opposed the application but did not present any concrete evidence of risk of tampering, witness intimidation, or flight. The opposition was general and did not challenge the applicants’ conduct, the grant of bail to co-accused, or the applicability of Sushila Aggarwal.
The Court's Analysis
The Court began by recalling the binding precedent laid down by the Supreme Court in Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi), which held that anticipatory bail is not inherently time-bound and may continue until the conclusion of trial, especially where the accused’s conduct does not suggest a threat to the investigation or trial process. The Court noted that the Supreme Court explicitly rejected the notion that anticipatory bail must automatically expire upon the filing of the charge sheet.
"The grant of anticipatory bail is not a one-time event but a continuing protection which may be extended till the conclusion of trial, depending on the conduct and behaviour of the accused."
The Court observed that the applicants had no prior criminal record, the allegations were not of a grave or heinous nature, and no credible evidence was presented to suggest they would interfere with the trial. The fact that two co-accused had already been granted anticipatory bail further supported the reasonableness of the applicants’ request. The Court emphasized that the discretion to grant anticipatory bail must be exercised with a view to prevent unnecessary incarceration and uphold personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution, while balancing the interests of justice.
The Court also noted that the State had not raised any specific objection to the applicants’ conduct or presented any material indicating a risk of evidence tampering or witness intimidation. In the absence of such grounds, the Court found no justification to deny anticipatory bail.
The Verdict
The application was allowed. The applicants - Rajeev Rathore, Rajat Rathore, and Vijay Rathore - are granted anticipatory bail until the conclusion of trial. They shall appear before the trial court within 15 days of this order and shall be released on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties each in the like amount. The conditions include: (i) cooperation with investigation and trial; (ii) no intimidation or inducement of witnesses; and (iii) no departure from India without court permission, with passport to be deposited with the S.S.P./S.P. Any breach of conditions shall render the bail liable to cancellation.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Anticipatory Bail Can Extend Beyond Charge Sheet Filing
- Practitioners may now confidently argue that anticipatory bail under Section 482 BNSS need not be limited to a fixed period, even after the charge sheet is filed
- The Sushila Aggarwal principle applies uniformly across all non-bailable offences under the BNS
- Courts must assess conduct, not merely stage of proceedings, when determining duration of bail
Co-Accused Bail as Persuasive Precedent
- Grant of anticipatory bail to co-accused in the same case creates a strong presumption in favour of similar relief for other applicants
- Denial of bail to one accused while granting it to others without distinction may violate Article 14 of the Constitution
- Courts must provide reasoned justification for differential treatment
Absence of Serious Injury Supports Bail
- In offences under BNS involving non-violent or non-life-threatening allegations, courts should lean toward granting anticipatory bail
- The nature of injury (or lack thereof) remains a relevant factor in assessing gravity and risk
- General allegations without specific factual corroboration weigh in favour of liberty
