Accused Can Seek Anticipatory Bail In One Case Despite Custody In Another: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has held that an accused is not precluded from applying for anticipatory bail in relation to an offence merely because the accused is in custody or has been denied bail in connection with a different offence, as long as the accused has not been arrested in the case in which anticipatory bail is sought.

A Bench of Justices Manoj Misra and Vijay Bishnoi allowed an appeal filed by one Ram Singh against the Delhi High Court's March 24, 2026 judgment, which had rejected his anticipatory bail plea in an FIR lodged in 2025 under Sections 318(4), 336(3), 338, 340(2), 61(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (Sections 420, 468, 467, 471, 120B and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, respectively).

Can an accused seek anticipatory bail in one case despite being denied bail in another?

Yes, the Supreme Court held that the rejection of Singh's anticipatory bail plea in a separate money laundering case did not bar him from seeking anticipatory bail in the present proceedings.

Court relied on its earlier judgment in Dhanraj Aswani v. Amar S Mulchandani and Another, (2024) 10 SCC 336, where a three-judge Bench had considered whether a person in custody in one case could seek anticipatory bail in another case.

The Bench had answered the question in the affirmative and held that no restriction could be read into Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) [now Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023] to prevent an accused from applying for anticipatory bail in relation to an offence while being in custody in a different offence.

An accused, Court had held, is entitled to seek anticipatory bail as long as they have not been arrested in connection with the offence for which such protection is sought.

"In the light of this decision, we are of the view that rejection of appellant's bail in money laundering matter would not affect his right to seek for anticipatory bail in the present matter where he has not been arrested thus far," the Bench said.

Why was the accused seeking anticipatory bail?

The FIR implicated M/s MG Leasing & Finance, Mohit Gogia, Mrs Shweta Gogia and Bharat Chhabra.

The allegations related to cheating the complainant of his money by assuring him that properties purchased in an auction under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 would be transferred to him at reasonable rates.

The accused were also alleged to have created false documents to cheat the complainant. However, the FIR neither named Singh as an accused nor disclosed any role played by him in the dealings with the complainant.

During the investigation, it was discovered that the accused named in the FIR had financial transactions with Singh. The investigation was thereafter directed towards Singh, following which he approached the Court for anticipatory bail.

Why did the Supreme Court find custodial interrogation unnecessary?

Court noted that Singh had been involved in business transactions with the other accused even before the FIR was lodged. It also observed that the documents recovered during the investigation did not, at this stage, prima facie establish a direct connection between Singh and the alleged crime.

The Bench said that it was not required to examine the various documents placed before it in detail or record findings on the merits of the case, as doing so could prejudice the investigation and any subsequent trial.

"At this stage, we are not supposed to deal with various documents placed before us to record our opinion on the merits of the case, as it would prejudice not only the investigation, but also the trial which may ensue," Court said.

The question before it, the Bench added, was whether custodial interrogation of Singh was required in the subject FIR.

Considering the nature of the allegations, Court found that the interim protection granted to Singh earlier deserved to be confirmed.

What happened to the accused's bail plea in the money laundering case?

The Supreme Court noted that Singh had, on some dates, been unable to cooperate with the investigation because he was implicated in a separate money laundering case.

His anticipatory bail plea in that case was dismissed by the High Court. The special leave petition filed against that order was also dismissed.

Singh, however, argued before the Supreme Court that the rejection of his anticipatory bail plea in the money laundering case could not prevent him from seeking anticipatory bail in the present case, which had to be considered on its own merits.

The Supreme Court accepted this position in light of the law laid down in Dhanraj Aswani.

Court had earlier, on April 7, 2024, granted Singh interim protection, which was extended from time to time.

What conditions did the Supreme Court impose?

The Supreme Court made the interim protection absolute, subject to Singh cooperating with the investigation and submitting himself for interrogation whenever required by the investigating agency.

Court also directed him to provide specimen writing and signatures for comparison with any disputed documents, if required by the investigating agency.

Singh was directed to appear before the Investigating Officer of the FIR on September 25, 2026, at the office of the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Inter-State Cell, Crime Branch, Chanakyapuri.

He was further directed to furnish bail bonds within three weeks to the satisfaction of the concerned trial court and give an undertaking that he would not threaten any witness, tamper with evidence or leave the country without the trial court's permission.

Case Title: Ram Singh Vs State (Govt of NCT of Delhi) & Anr

Bench: Justices Manoj Misra and Vijay Bishnoi 

Date of Judgment: September 15, 2026