Anticipatory Bail Continues Even After Filing Of Charge Sheet: Karnataka High Court Reiterates
|The Court held that once anticipatory bail is granted, it continues to operate even after the filing of the charge sheet, and the liberty of the accused cannot be curtailed unless the bail is cancelled in accordance with law.
The Karnataka High Court has held that anticipatory bail continues even after filing of the charge sheet and that an accused already enlarged on anticipatory bail cannot ordinarily be taken into judicial custody unless the bail granted earlier is cancelled in accordance with law.
The Court observed that the Special Court had adopted a procedure “unheard and contrary to the settled position of law” by directing custody of the accused despite the anticipatory bail continuing to remain in force and without any application seeking cancellation of bail either by the State or the victim.
The Court was hearing a writ petition filed challenging the order passed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge, FTSC-I, Uttarakannada, Karwar, whereby the petitioner-accused was remanded to judicial custody despite having already obtained anticipatory bail in the same crime.
A Bench of Justice Vijaykumar A. Patil, while referring to the Apex Court’s decision in Dr Rajesh Pratap Giri v. The State of UP, observed: “The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid decision, considering the law on the point laid down in the case of Sushila Aggarwal and Ors. Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and Anr., (2020) has held that, once the anticipatory bail is granted, the same would continue to operate even after the filing of charges.”
Furthermore, the Bench, while taking note that neither the State nor the victim had sought the cancellation of bail and that the application of the petitioner/accused for regular bail was pending before the Special Court, held that, “there was no occasion for the Special Court to pass the impugned order … for taking custody of the accused without there being any order for cancellation of the bail or anticipatory bail granted by it”.
Advocates Shadab H. Yadawad and Abhijeet S Kankonkar appeared for the petitioner. High Court Government Pleader Avinash Malipatil appeared for the State.
Background
The petitioner was arraigned as an accused in a criminal case registered for offences punishable under Section 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and Section 78(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
The petitioner had obtained anticipatory bail on 26.02.2026. Thereafter, the investigating agency completed the investigation and filed the charge sheet before the Special Court.
Following cognisance, summons were issued to the petitioner, who appeared before the Special Court and filed an application seeking regular bail. Notice was issued to the State and the victim on the said application.
During the proceedings, the mother of the victim allegedly made an oral statement before the Special Court asserting that the accused was continuing to follow the victim girl and that because of his conduct, she was unable to secure college admission or attend college. The accused denied the allegation.
Accepting the oral statement made by the mother of the victim, the Special Court proceeded to direct that the accused be taken into custody. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner approached the High Court challenging the legality of the custody order.
Court’s Observation
The High Court noted that it was undisputed that the petitioner had already been granted anticipatory bail and had complied with all conditions imposed under the bail order.
The Court further observed that neither the State nor the victim had sought cancellation of the anticipatory bail granted to the petitioner. The application seeking regular bail was still pending consideration before the Special Court.
The Bench held that in such circumstances, there was no occasion for the Special Court to direct that the accused be taken into custody without first cancelling the anticipatory bail in accordance with law.
Referring to the decision of the Supreme Court in Dr Rajesh Pratap Giri v. State of U.P., the Court reproduced the observations made in Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2020) 5 SCC 1, wherein it was held that “… the mere subsequent event of the filing of a charge-sheet cannot compel the accused to surrender and seek regular bail.”
The High Court also reproduced the conclusions recorded by the Supreme Court in Sushila Aggarwal, reiterating that “… the life or duration of an anticipatory bail order does not end normally at the time and stage when the accused is summoned by the court, or when charges are framed, but can continue till the end of the trial.”
The Bench held that the settled legal position clearly recognised continuation of anticipatory bail even after filing of the charge sheet and that the Special Court had committed a grave error by taking the accused into custody without any order cancelling the anticipatory bail.
The Court further observed that the liberty of an accused already enlarged on bail cannot be taken away by bypassing the settled legal procedure governing cancellation of bail.
Conclusion
The Karnataka High Court held that the order passed by the Special Court directing that the accused be taken into custody despite subsisting anticipatory bail was unsustainable in law.
Accordingly, the Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the impugned custody order, and directed the immediate release of the petitioner.
The Court further directed the Special Court to consider the petitioner’s pending application for regular bail in accordance with law while observing that the petitioner would continue to abide by the conditions imposed in the anticipatory bail order.
Cause Title: Nikhil Krishna Kankonkar v. The State of Karnataka (Neutral Citation: 2026:KHC-D:6547)