Arrest During Subsisting Interim Bail Arbitrary Even With Added Sections: Allahabad High Court

In a significant ruling, the Allahabad High Court has held that an accused who is on interim bail cannot be arrested merely because additional penal sections have been added during the investigation, without the police first approaching the court that granted the bail. Justice Samit Gopal termed the arrest of the appellant, Durgesh Yadav, as "arbitrary" and directed his release on bail. The court also ordered an inquiry into the conduct of the police officers involved.

The Incident and the Legal Tangle

The case originates from an FIR lodged on March 28, 2026 , alleging that Yadav assaulted Subhash Ram at his tea shop in Azamgarh. The FIR invoked sections 115(2), 352, 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and provisions of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act . Yadav was initially granted interim bail on April 9, 2026 , and this protection was repeatedly extended by the Special Judge ( SC/ST Act ), Azamgarh , with the last extension granted on May 5, 2026 , making the matter returnable on May 8, 2026 .

However, on May 6, 2026 —while the interim bail order was still subsisting—Yadav was arrested. The appellant claimed he was taken into custody from the court premises after attending proceedings, without any specific court order. The State, on the other hand, argued that the arrest took place near a railway crossing, and that the interim bail had been granted under the original sections, while Sections 109 and 117(2) BNS had been added and a provision of the SC/ST Act altered during the investigation. The State contended that the bail, being limited to the earlier sections, did not prevent the arrest.

High Court Rejects the ‘Added Sections’ Argument

Justice Samit Gopal found this reasoning untenable. The court relied on three Supreme Court precedents— Pradeep Ram v. State of Jharkhand (2019), Manoj Suresh Jhadav v. State of Maharashtra (2018), and Bhadresh Bipinbhai Sheth v. State of Gujarat (2015)—which establish that an accused on bail cannot be arrested without first seeking the court’s permission when new sections are added.

The High Court observed that the investigating agency should have informed the trial court about the added sections and awaited its decision, rather than unilaterally arresting the accused. The court noted that the Special Judge had repeatedly mentioned in its orders that the prosecution papers and case diary were not produced before it, implying that the trial court was kept in the dark about the actual sections being investigated.

“The act of the said police officer is arbitrary”

In its key observations, the High Court stated: “If an accused is already on bail in some sections and there is subsequent addition of other sections against him during the course of investigation, then arrest of the accused by the police ignoring the earlier bail order was not permissible.” The court further remarked that it would have been appropriate for the police to report the matter to the concerned court and “await the decision of the court, but the police on its own could not have jumped to arrest him in the same case crime number even after alteration of sections.”

The judgment emphasized that the situation was even more significant because Yadav’s regular bail application was itself pending before the trial court. “The act of the said police officer is arbitrary,” the court concluded.

Bail Granted, Inquiry Ordered

The High Court allowed the criminal appeal and set aside the Special Judge’s order of May 29, 2026 , which had rejected Yadav’s second bail application. The court directed that Yadav be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond and two sureties, subject to conditions such as not tampering with evidence and attending court proceedings.

Additionally, the court directed the Senior Superintendent of Police, Azamgarh , to institute an inquiry into the conduct of the concerned police officer(s) through an officer not below the rank of Additional Superintendent of Police . The inquiry must be completed expeditiously, and a compliance report is to be submitted to the High Court within three weeks. The matter has been listed for September 14, 2026 , for consideration of the inquiry report.

Implications

This ruling reinforces the principle that a subsisting bail order —even if interim—cannot be circumvented by the investigating agency through a mere amendment of charges. The court’s directive for an inquiry serves as a strong reminder that police actions must align with judicial orders, and any deviation may be met with accountability. The decision upholds the sanctity of bail and protects accused persons from arbitrary arrest during the pendency of proceedings.