New Delhi: The Supreme Court has held that anticipatory bail cannot be arbitrarily restricted to end when investigation concludes or a chargesheet is filed, ruling that such protection typically continues through the entire trial unless specific reasons warrant curtailment.Justices J.B. Pardiwala and K.V. Viswanathan pronounced the order on February 9 (uploaded on February 11) whilst setting aside an Allahabad high court decision that had imposed an unusual time limit on anticipatory bail in a dowry death case.The judgment concerned Sumit, who was accused alongside others of offences under Section 80(2)/85 of Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita (BNS) and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, following the death of his sister-in-law under mysterious circumstances at her matrimonial home seven months after marriage.Allahabad high court’s approachThe Allahabad high court had initially granted Sumit anticipatory bail but explicitly limited the protection to “till the filing of the police chargesheet”. After the chargesheet was submitted, the high court rejected a fresh anticipatory bail application, prompting the Supreme Court appeal.The bench questioned this approach directly: either bail should be granted or refused, but once the court exercises discretion in the accused’s favour after considering all circumstances, there is no justification for restricting it to the investigation stage.“If the aforesaid be so, then the high court should have indicated whilst declining to grant anticipatory bail by way of the impugned order as to what was so particular or what was so gross that the High Court thought fit not to grant anticipatory bail,” the judgment states.Legal framework reinforcedThe court comprehensively reviewed established precedents, beginning with the Constitution Bench decision in Sushila Aggarwal vs State (NCT of Delhi) (2020), which explicitly held that anticipatory bail protection should continue “without any restriction on time” and can extend “till the end of the trial”.The bench cited Bharat Chaudhary vs State of Bihar (2003), which established that Section 438 CrPC contains no restriction preventing courts from granting anticipatory bail even after cognisance is taken or a chargesheet is filed. This principle was affirmed in Ravindra Saxena vs State of Rajasthan (2010), where rejection of anticipatory bail solely because a chargesheet had been filed was held erroneous.The court emphasised that when an accused who has been granted anticipatory bail cooperates throughout the investigation and the chargesheet is filed whilst he remains free, this naturally indicates no need for arrest.Proper risk management methodologyAccording to the judgment, concerns about witness tampering, absconding, or evidence destruction should be addressed through carefully crafted bail conditions – such as requirements for cooperation, attendance, and non-interference – rather than through arbitrary time restrictions.“Where circumstances change, modification or cancellation may be sought under the BNSS, 2023, but expiry clauses inserted at inception are unsustainable,” the court ruled.No automatic arrest requirement at chargesheet stageThe order cited Siddharth vs State of Uttar Pradesh (2022), which endorsed the Delhi high court’s 2004 ruling in a case that Section 170 CrPC does not mandate arrest of every accused when filing a chargesheet.“If the investigating officer does not believe that the accused will abscond or disobey summons he/she is not required to be produced in custody,” the court observed, emphasising that personal liberty is a constitutional mandate and arrest should not be routine.The bench also referenced Md. Asfak Alam vs State of Jharkhand (2023), where a high court’s mechanical rejection of anticipatory bail after chargesheet filing – coupled with directions to surrender and seek regular bail – was condemned as a “casual approach” that virtually rubbed “salt in the wound”.When additional offences are addedIn an important clarification, the court addressed scenarios where new serious offences are added after bail is granted. Citing Pradeep Ram vs State of Jharkhand (2019) and Prahlad Singh Bhati vs NCT Delhi (2001), the bench held that addition of aggravated charges can disentitle an accused to liberty previously granted.The order establishes four principles for such situations:The accused may surrender and seek bail for newly added offences, with possible arrest if bail is refusedInvestigating agencies can seek orders under Sections 437(5) or 439(2) CrPC for arrest and custodyCourts can direct arrest and custody of already-bailed accused after cancelling bail, or can order arrest even without formally cancelling earlier bailInvestigating authorities require court orders before arresting an already-bailed accused when new offences are addedRelief grantedThe Supreme Court set aside the Allahabad high court’s order and directed that in the event of Sumit’s arrest, he shall be released on anticipatory bail subject to conditions the investigating officer deems appropriate. After release, he must appear before the trial court and furnish fresh bail bonds.The Registry has been directed to forward the judgment to the Registrar General of Allahabad high court for circulation before the Chief Justice.The ruling reinforces that anticipatory bail, once granted following proper judicial consideration, cannot be subjected to procedural milestones or arbitrary deadlines without exceptional reasons being recorded.