Back
2025 Supreme(SC) 1622
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Prashant Kumar Mishra, JJ.
Ritesh Kumar – Appellant
Versus
The State Of Bihar – Respondent
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s).16184 of 2024 [Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 31-08-2024 in CRLM No.61308/2024 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Patna]
Decided on : 17-03-2025
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Anticipatory Bail - Conditions for granting anticipatory bail must be balanced and should not impose specific coercive measures prematurely. A court's indulgence in granting anticipatory bail must reflect the overall context of the case, allowing trial courts discretion upon submission of a charge-sheet. (Paras 3-4)
(B) Modification of Court Orders - Courts must avoid issuing directives that impede the authority of trial courts, ensuring an equitable approach to bail applications. (Paras 3-4)
Facts of the case:
The appellant challenged a portion of the High Court's order that stated if a charge-sheet is filed against him, he shall be taken into custody. The appellant argued this condition was improper as it limited judicial discretion post-charge-sheet submission.
Findings of Court:
The court agreed that the directive regarding custody upon submission of the charge-sheet was inappropriate and modified it to allow the trial court to decide based on the case materials without a mandatory custody order.
Issues: Whether a court can impose a mandate for custody upon the submission of a charge-sheet in an anticipatory bail order.
Ratio Decidendi: A court considering anticipatory bail must maintain a balance and avoid precluding trial courts from exercising their discretion on subsequent proceedings; specific mandates regarding custody undermine this balance.
Result: The Special Leave Petition is disposed of with modifications to the impugned order.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. conditions of anticipatory bail order. (Para 1) |
| 2. arguments against conditions set by lower court. (Para 2) |
| 3. court's reasoning on bail conditions. (Para 3) |
| 4. modification of direction regarding bail appearance. (Para 4) |
| 5. disposition of the special leave petition. (Para 5 , 6) |
ORDER :
1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner being aggrieved by portion of the order impugned dated 31.08.2024, which reads as under:-
"8. It is further made clear that if charge-sheet is submitted against the petitioner connecting him with the offence in that event the present anticipatory bail order shall lose its effect and the learned trial court shall take all coercive steps to ensure that petitioner is behind bar."
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that such a condition of the petitioner being taken into custody upon submission of charge-sheet was not proper and has placed reliance upon the order of a Coordinate Bench of this Court dated 10.02.2025 passed in Criminal Appeal No.719 of 2025, which is also arising out of the same FIR.
3. Having considered the matter, we are of the firm opinion that whenever a Court considers an application for anticipatory bail/bail, it is a composite order and one portion cannot be segregated from the other. Thus, if a Court gives indulgence in one part, it is only in the background of what follows and how the Court balances the equities. In the present case, the Court after giving indulgence of granting anticipatory bail because at that point of time nothing serious had come against the petitioner; should then have left it open for the trial court to take a call on submission of charge-sheet. However, to this extent, the learned counsel for the petitioner is correct that there could not have been a specific direction that upon submission of charge-sheet, the Court shall take all coercive steps to ensure that the petitioner is behind bar. The Court could have just left it open for the trial court to consider the matter upon the petitioner appearing and then taking a call without there being any mandamus issued to take him into custody.
4. Accordingly, without interfering in the order impugned substantially, we modify the direction given in the last paragraph (paragraph no.8 of the order impugned) which shall read that since the charge-sheet has now been submitted against the petitioner, he is required to appear before the Court on the question of bail in accordance with law based on the materials before the Court without being prejudiced by the order impugned. The petitioner shall appear before the Court concerned within a period of three weeks from today. Till then, the interim protection granted earlier by this Court by order dated 25.11.2024 shall continue.
5. Accordingly, the Special Leave Petition is disposed of.
6. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.
