Allahabad High Court questions short-term anticipatory bail order.

The Allahabad High Court has sought a fresh explanation from an Azamgarh Additional Sessions Judge for granting anticipatory bail to three accused for only 30 days, asking why such a short period was fixed when the accused had not been arrested during investigation and the alleged offences carried a maximum punishment of less than seven years.

The bench of Justice Madan Pal Singh, hearing an application filed by Suresh Yadav and two others, found the explanation earlier submitted by the trial judge unsatisfactory and directed him to answer a series of questions on the practice of granting bail for limited periods.

Why did the high court question the 30-day anticipatory bail?

The applicants had challenged the December 23, 2025 order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 1, Azamgarh, which allowed their anticipatory bail application but restricted the protection to 30 days. The case arose from an FIR registered at Nizamabad police station in Azamgarh under Sections 110, 115(2), 352, 351(3) and 317(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.

Before the high court, the applicants said they had not been arrested either during the investigation or until the charge sheet was filed. They had also complied with the notices issued to them under Section 35(3) of the BNSS [Section 41A of the repealed Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC)]. Their counsel pointed out that the maximum punishment for the alleged offences was below seven years.

The applicants argued that once the trial court had allowed their anticipatory bail plea, there was no justification for limiting the protection to 30 days, particularly since the police had already filed the charge sheet and the court had taken cognizance. They relied on the Supreme Court Constitution Bench judgment in Sushila Aggarwal v State (NCT of Delhi).

Short-term bail could cause unnecessary harassment

The high court had first raised the issue on August 18, when it noticed that the trial court's order did not record any specific reason for restricting the anticipatory bail to 30 days.

Court noted that the charge sheet had already been filed and cognizance had been taken, yet the trial court had granted protection only for 30 days. It observed that this would require the accused to approach the court again after the period expired and could result in “unnecessary harassment”.

The high court consequently extended the protection and directed the trial court to explain why and under which provision of law interim bail had been granted for only 30 days.

The trial judge subsequently submitted his explanation on September 3. However, Justice Singh said the explanation did not satisfy the court.

The high court said it was settled law that a court could either grant anticipatory bail until the conclusion of the trial, subject to appropriate conditions, or reject the application after considering the gravity of the offence. But, it noted, the trial judge had not mentioned any “peculiar facts and circumstances” justifying the 30-day limitation.

Court has now asked the judge to explain in how many cases he had granted bail for limited periods such as 20, 30 or 40 days. It has also asked why the applicants were given only 30 days when the maximum punishment for the alleged offences was below seven years and they had not been arrested until the filing of the charge sheet.

The judge has also been asked to explain what the applicants were expected to do after the 30-day period expired and whether they would have to surrender again and seek anticipatory bail afresh.

The matter will next be heard on September 30. Until then, the interim protection granted to the applicants will continue.

Case Title: Suresh Yadav and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Order Date: September 15, 2026

Bench: Justice Madan Pal Singh

Tags: